La Gondola, Inc. v. City of Providence, by and through its Treasurer James J. Lombardi, 210 A.3d 1205

La Gondola operated Carousel Village concessions under a contract expiring April 30, 2015, with a conditional five-year option requiring mutual agreement on rent; it also operated Boathouse concessions under a separate contract.
La Gondola procured a trackless train and claims a January 30, 2014 signed amendment (Train Amendment) granted it exclusivity for all park train rides; only Parks Superintendent McMahon signed that document.
The City issued an RFP (with discretionary waiver language) for Carousel Village concessions; bids: P.G.S. (noncompliant/low), La Gondola (~$525,569, responsive), and the Zoo (~$591,000 but omitted the composting-toilet item in the RFP).
The Zoo sought additional revenue sources after the City reduced payments to the Zoo by $300,000; email exchanges show the Zoo’s director believed there were verbal commitments to provide revenue opportunities.
McMahon, who was an ex‑officio Zoo trustee, prepared the RFP and recommended awarding the contract to the Zoo; the trial justice found extensive factual findings but concluded no corruption, bad faith, or palpable abuse of discretion.
Superior Court entered judgment for defendants on declaratory, mandamus, Train Amendment, and interference claims; the Supreme Court affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether award tainted by corruption, bad faith, or palpable abuse of discretion	La Gondola: City and Zoo colluded (quid pro quo tied to $300K funding cut); McMahon’s Zoo role and emails show predetermination and favoritism	City/Zoo: RFP reserved discretionary rights; Zoo’s bid was financially superior; no written promises; officials acted within discretion	Court: No error; trial justice’s factual findings entitled to deference; insufficient proof of corruption, bad faith, or palpable abuse of discretion
Whether Train Amendment was enforceable as exclusive right to operate park trains	La Gondola: Amendment was valid; drafting and mutual assent sufficient despite missing La Gondola signature	City: Contract required amendments in a written instrument executed by both parties; amendment lacked La Gondola signature, so not binding	Court: Amendment invalid—contract unambiguously required execution by both parties (signature); single signature ineffective
Whether Zoo tortiously interfered with La Gondola’s contractual or prospective relations	La Gondola: Zoo knew of La Gondola’s contract/option and intentionally procured City to nullify it	Zoo/City: City lawfully put concession out to bid; Zoo’s communications were competitive pursuit, not improper means	Court: No improper interference shown; La Gondola’s post‑April 30, 2015 expectancy was speculative; Zoo’s conduct not legally malicious or wrongful

Kayak Centre at Wickford Cove, LLC v. Town of Narragansett, 116 A.3d 250 (R.I. 2015) (concessions contracts not governed by competitive‑bid statute; apply Gilbane standard)
Gilbane Building Co. v. Board of Trustees of State Colleges, 267 A.2d 396 (R.I. 1970) (public officials must act honestly and in good faith; overturning awards requires corruption, bad faith, or palpable abuse)
Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Rhode Island v. Najarian, 865 A.2d 1074 (R.I. 2005) (decisions by awarding authorities entitled to presumption of correctness; high bar to overturn)
HK & S Construction Holding Corp. v. Dible, 111 A.3d 407 (R.I. 2015) (deference to municipal procurement determinations)
Truk Away of Rhode Island, Inc. v. Macera Brothers of Cranston, Inc., 643 A.2d 811 (R.I. 1994) (courts should exercise caution before enjoining municipal contract awards)