| |
|
|
Reputation:97
Level:Superstar
Since:Sep 25, 2006
|
|
A few of the comments I have read seem to suggest that the former owner is just being a baby about all of this.. however, his "babying" has the defense and support of c contract law on recission. If a contract is entered to by one party based on the fraudulent material misrepresentation of another party, the court may "rescind" the contract to put the parties in the position they would have been had the contract never existed.
So props to Bennett, keep your team, make those OKC Investors keep their word.
|
|
|
Reputation:98
Level:Superstar
Since:Jul 8, 2007
|
|
Props to Schultz, right?... never thought i'd say that before.
|
|
|
Reputation:98
Level:Superstar
Since:Jul 8, 2007
|
|
so in this contract, did the current owners say they will never move the team?
|
|
|
Reputation:86
Level:All-Star
Since:Sep 6, 2006
|
|
I think a lot would depend on the exact language of the contract, and then what kind of judge the case goes before. From reading the article, I get the idea that the promise was to make a "good faith effort" to keep the team in Seattle, which is unfortunately (as tyellington points out) not the same as a promise to never move. That means the old owner would have to try to prove that the new ownership intended all the later negotiations with the city and private groups to fall through. That seems like a reasonable argument to me based on what has occurred, but it is tough to prove that in court.
A lot may be determined by where the case is heard. Because the new owners are located in Oklahoma City, that makes it a federal case, and if I'm the new owners, I want that case heard anywhere but in the state of Washington. The bottom line with anything legal is that the law is at least 50% the opinion of the judges and the lawyers before them. The new ownership, though, is hoping that possession is still nine tenths of the law.
|
|
|
Reputation:85
Level:All-Star
Since:Nov 28, 2006
|
|
Not a chance to win. For this to be actionable, the old owner will have to PROVE that the new owner made misrepresentation that, at the time they were made, the new owner knew were false. There had to be an intent to misrepresent at the time the statement was made, not looking in hindsight. The new owners can surely point to the time effort and money they put into attempting to have a new stadium built in Seattle. So the new owners can show that their present intention when the statements were made was to make a good faith attempt to keep the team in Seattle, which hey did. Also, it will surely come up in the course of the case as to the reason that the old owner sold the team (maybe because he couldn't get a new stadium built). That fact may not be technically relevant, but it would influence the ultimate decision of the trier of fact. This would be a very difficult case to win.
|
|
|
Reputation:89
Level:All-Star
Since:Aug 17, 2006
|
|
While these two parties are wrangling in court, the Memphis franchise is still for sale, the stands collapsed, the team sucks, and attendance is awful. So we have some combination of the Sonics, Grizzlies, OKC and Seattle getting temas, and Memphis can devote its full support to the basketball squad in the city...the TIGERS!
|
|
|
Reputation:94
Level:All-Star
Since:Nov 10, 2006
|
|
the whole case is based on exactly what a good faith effort is, since it is only a good faith effort to keep the team in Seattle it can mean numerous things, but if the court rules that the language meant that the Bennett group would concentrate fully on keeping the team in Seattle then they will lose considering the emails prove that was not there intention and everyone is forgetting the fact that the emails were pre Bennett asking the state for the new arena, so there is no real legal argument there..but good faith could mean several things, considering OKC was offering alot more and Seattle stated they would not renegotiate the lease agreement, so it just all depends on what the court decides a good faith effort means considering it was never written in the contract he must exhaust all his options in Seattle before thinking of moving
|
|
|
Reputation:17
Level:Amateur
Since:May 19, 2007
|
|
As a Vanderbilt law grad, I agree with much of what's already been discussed. The chance of this lawsuit being successful on the merits is highly doubtful. Typically, courts respect the sanctity of the contract and are against the notion of recission. Again, Shutlz chances of success are slim to none. With this being said, I'm a HUGE Sonics fan. Since the days of Nate M, Ricky Pierce, the Glove, Detlef, and the Reign Man I'v been a big fan. I still can't believe that the Sonics are really leaving Seattle....
|
|
|
Reputation:88
Level:All-Star
Since:Mar 20, 2008
|
|
I agree that they do have a case. It has seemed to me over this process that Stern is a real supporter of moving the team and I don not under stand why.
|
|
|
Reputation:94
Level:All-Star
Since:Sep 20, 2006
|
It's difficult to make any determination or prediction as to the potential for the contract to be rescinded and the ability of any court to award damages in the form of specific performance (as opposed to monetary damages) without actually viewing the contract in question.
That being said, if the former owner elects to proceed with the lawsuit and it survives an inevitable summary judgment motion, the Sonics are likely going to being staying put well beyond what the Oakies would have anticipated. Then things will start to get really interesting as they reflect on the time and money they'll have to spend defending against the suit, not to mention the possibility of losing at trial.. and then there's the whole appeal process..
Personally, from what I've read, it's seems pretty clear that Bennet and company were intent on getting the Sonics out of Seattle well before the sale and their promise to make "good faith efforts" at keeping the team local was a big lie.
|
|
