Quote:
Originally Posted by kevinpate
I'd say the city's position boils down to
(a) the lease requires your uniqueness to remain a part of our collective for the
full term, and money can not replace that uniquenees of the team being here
(b) you knew it was a bad for your side lease when you assumed it, and signed it
anyway
(c) you're a business man and a deal is a deal in the city's view.
(d) Since that oughta get the city home, we may as well get in some discovery on the Schultz suit and save our savior some dough
Does that prevail? I'm no fed black robe, so not for me to say, but they sure seem to think that's enough, and not just the fans, as that's the way the lawyers seem to be playing it.
did not have to wade into the swamp
|
Good points, but it takes a stronger showing to invoke the court's equity power for specific performance. What you're saying speaks to the validity of the contract...no one disagrees that the lease must be honored. Now, must it be honored by paying all the rent, or by actually staying in Seattle. That's the showing that seattle must make. From wiki:
Orders of specific performance are granted when damages are not an adequate remedy, and in some specific cases such as land sale. Such orders are discretionary, as with all equitable remedies, so the availability of this remedy will depend on whether it is appropriate in the circumstances of the case.
There are certain circumstances where an order of specific performance would not be granted. Such circumstances include:
1. specific performance would cause severe hardship to the defendant
2. the contract was unconscionable
3. the claimant has misbehaved (no clean hands)
4. specific performance is impossible
5. performance consists of a personal service
6. the contract is too vague
7. contracts terminable at will
8. contracts requiring constant supervision
9. contract lacking mutuality.
10. contract made for no consideration.