Ed Schory & Sons, 662 N.E.2d at 1082-83 (emphasis added). Saverin’s ar guments revolve around the fact that Wendy’s opposition to a receivership was central to the purpose of the Forbearance Agreement. But the terms of the Forbearance Agreement and the surrounding-circumstances make clear that the potential for SPCP or another creditor to renew or initiate receivership proceedings was of utmost concern to both Saverin and Wendy’s at the time the agreement was negotiated. We are thus unpersuaded by Saverin’s argument that Wendy’s actions in connection with future receivership proceedings could not have been contemplated at the time of drafting. See id.; Agilysys Inc. v. Gordon, No. 1:06-CV-1665, 2008 WL 5188278, at *4-5, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 99553, at *14-15 (N.D.Ohio Dec. 10, 2008) (<HOLDING>); U.S. Construction Corp. v. Harbor Bay
holding that nonsignatories to a contract have no rights under the contract and thus no standing to assert claims under the contract holding that it was improper when prosecutor posed questions to defense counsel that could have been read as posed only to the defendant and whose answers could only have been provided by the defendant recognizing that the declaratory judgment act is only procedural and does not create substantive rights internal quotation marks and citations omitted holding that expenses incurred under construction contract were direct damages because they were contemplated in contract provision that required defendant to reimburse plaintiff for damage occurring during work on project and that were caused by negligence or fault of defendant or its agents holding that the defendant cannot create contract rights that could have been contemplated but were omitted from the agreement