Quote:
Originally Posted by OKCMallen
I agree. It's barely colorable. and surely the court will noticed he doesn't want to rescind..he doesn't feel THAT sstrongly so as to have to disgorge his profits from the sale...he just wants someone else to buy the team......freaking joke.
|
He's not asking for rescission. He's asking that the team be placed into the ownership of a trust for the purpose of selling the team to a Seattle owner. Schultz is very happily hanging on to his 350 million.
That's what I don't get here -- he has raised an issue of what has to be material breach. The only trouble is that even under his own facts, even if there was a breach, it wasn't material. He got paid, that was the purpose of the deal, you've got to have a material breach to even get to the question as to whether we're going to unwind the deal and do the constructive trust.
I see three major hurdles: 1) Standing; 2) material breach?; 3) Is equitable relief necessary in this case, or will cash damages suffice?
In my own mind, trying to be as objective as I can (and obviously being not totally sure what everything says and where it is), I don't see a likelihood of any of those being cleared.