## Facts

- Robert Earl Pierce, a former Mississippi Bureau of Narcotics (MBN) official, was the subject of an internal MBN memorandum alleging misconduct, including arranging transfers of state-owned airplanes for personal use by a political aide and giving away confiscated weapons.
- A newspaper reporter obtained the memorandum and published an article describing its contents, reporting that the matter had been referred for review, and noting Pierce’s denial of the allegations.
- In separate litigation, an MBN official later admitted he provided the memorandum to the reporter and claimed he had asked her to keep it confidential “for the time being” and to “check it out” before publishing.
- Pierce sued the newspaper entities and asserted a breach-of-contract theory: the official’s provision of the memorandum allegedly was exchanged for the reporter’s promise (1) to maintain temporary confidentiality and (2) not to publish until the allegations were verified.
- Pierce claimed he could enforce the alleged reporter-source agreement as a third-party beneficiary because the promise to delay publication until verification would protect him from harm.

## Issues

1. Whether the alleged reporter assurance not to publish until verification (and to maintain temporary confidentiality) formed an enforceable express or implied contract.
2. Whether Pierce could enforce any such agreement as an intended third-party beneficiary rather than an incidental beneficiary.

## Decision

- The court granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment on Pierce’s breach-of-contract claim.
- The court held the alleged assurance was, at most, a moral or ethical commitment associated with newsgathering practices, not a legally enforceable contractual obligation.
- The court further concluded that, even assuming some promise existed between the source and the reporter, Pierce was not shown to be an intended third-party beneficiary with enforceable rights.

## Legal Principles

- Moral or ethical obligations, without the elements of contract formation, do not create express or implied contractual duties.
- A contract requires objective manifestation of mutual assent and legally sufficient consideration; informal source–reporter understandings about verification or temporary secrecy do not automatically satisfy these requirements.
- Third-party-beneficiary enforcement requires proof that the contracting parties intended to confer enforceable rights on the third party; incidental benefits are insufficient.

## Conclusion

The court rejected a contract-based attempt to impose liability on a newspaper for publishing allegations obtained from a source, holding that a reporter’s verification or confidentiality assurances in ordinary newsgathering were not enforceable contractual promises and did not give the story’s subject third-party-beneficiary rights.


Pierce v. The Clarion Ledger, 452 F. Supp. 2d 661 (S.D. Miss. 2006)