Final answer:
Sherwin Williams, as a specified supplier in a contract between Valley Bridge and Rainbow Painters, is not automatically an intended third-party beneficiary with enforceable rights; whether they can enforce the contract depends on the intention to benefit them directly.
Step-by-step explanation:
If Valley Bridge contracts with Rainbow Painters to paint a bridge and the contract specifies that only Sherwin Williams paint must be used, it's possible that Sherwin Williams could be considered a third-party beneficiary of the contract. In general contract law, third-party beneficiaries can enforce a contract if it can be demonstrated that the contract was intended to benefit them. However, being merely a specified supplier in a contract does not automatically make Sherwin Williams an intended beneficiary with enforceable rights. Instead, it must be clear that there was an intention to benefit Sherwin Williams, not just a preference for their product for its qualities.
For Sherwin Williams to enforce the contract against either Valley Bridge or Rainbow Painters, they would need to establish that the contract was intended to benefit them directly. In many cases, suppliers like Sherwin Williams are considered incidental beneficiaries, and they would not have legal standing to enforce the contract terms. It usually requires more than just a specification of materials to confer enforceable rights to a third party.