Opinion ID: 1102178
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Third-Party Breach-of-Contract Claims

Text: Finally, Bay Lines argues that it was error to dismiss its third-party breach-of-contract claims when it filed them within the time required by Rule 78, Ala. R. Civ. P. The trial court did not dismiss those claims solely because they fell outside the 10-day period permitted by Rule 78, but also because they fell outside of the 6-year statute-of-limitations period for contract claims. See § 6-2-34(9), Ala. Code 1975. The contracts to which Bay Lines alleges it was a third-party beneficiary were contracts for the sale of the panels to Stoughton; those contracts were all completed before May 1993. The claims filed in January 2000 were, therefore, more than six years after the dates of the completion of the contracts and were therefore time-barred. [I]f a [judgment] correctly determines a case, the reasons on which the trial court acted are unimportant and the case will be affirmed. City of Montgomery v. Couturier, 373 So.2d 625, 627 (Ala.1979), citing Clanahan v. Morgan, 268 Ala. 71, 74, 105 So.2d 429 (1958). We, therefore, affirm the trial court's judgment dismissing and striking the claims for third-party breach of contract. For the foregoing reasons, the trial court's judgment is affirmed. AFFIRMED. MOORE, C.J., and BROWN, HARWOOD, and STUART, JJ., concur.