Quote:
Originally Posted by HOT ROD
However, my point was - Seattle LEAKED its info on Bennett to 1) get the public fired up against Bennett in the hopes that 2) Bennett would leak HIS discovery on the city - thereby diminishing it when it goes to court. Also, it wasn't a sure thing that the trial would not have been a jury trial - Im from here and it wasn't until Jan or Feb that Marsha ruled it would not be a jury trial - which is a motion the city raised and many sonics fanatics here were counting on. ...
Like I said, this was all set up to be a PUBLIC trial - yet once Marsha was assigned to oversee it; she removed any and all publicity and is instead trying it on rules of law, something the city has yet failed to prove given it is their burden.
|
The only possible jury question here would be damages. Whether the specific performance portion of the lease is enforceable or not is a question which would never go to the jury. Juries interpret questions of fact, not law -- and that's a question of law (equity in fact.. juries never preside over questions of equity either).
As for the damages in this case, the judge made a smart call -- had there been an unfavorable jury verdict, my feeling is it's more than likely that a jury would declare something like: "Seattle is damaged in an amount equal to the national debt plus statutory interest" (possible, considering the animus here), she'd have to reduce the damages and thereby make the determination anyway.
I think it was always a very safe bet that there would never be a jury involved here.
Quote:
|
again, I know the city knew this or that - but Im saying they thought they would win objections and pin it all on bennett and even prior to trial - Im sure they thought the Okie would 'fire back' with discovery he'd gained to Save His Face in Seattle. Remember, Bennett mentioned that he can't show his face here anymore, im sure that was a planned tactic by the city, thinking Bennett actually cared what common Seattleites thought of him.
|
No one wins on objections -- and most of the time, unless something is clearly outside of the rules of evidence, in a bench trial, most questionable things come in. The judge can look at them and decide later whether they were admissible, do the probative v. prejudicial balancing, etc. and not really be prejudiced because of hearing inadmissible evidence.
A lot of people think what objections are overruled, etc. has a huge effect on a case -- it really doesn't. In the final analysis, the question of law isn't hugely difficult. It sets up like this (as we've said many times):
Specific performance is an equitable remedy. To be granted an equitable remedy, the movant must have clean hands, which means that the current crisis demanding the court's power is none of their own doing. If there's a lack of clean hands, even if the city can prove that there are unique benefits which can't be compensated for with cash damages, the city still loses -- good news for us.
The only remaining issue is a question of fact -- what are the damages? Here, the city will be offering the kitchen-sink sorts of arguments their economists came up with -- completely bizarre theories in my opinion. We're into the law of contract since this is a lease contract being broken. In this case, there are no punitives, or anything of that nature. The only thing the plaintiff can expect is to be placed in the same sort of position he would have been had the contract been executed.
Special rules apply to damages here -- the plaintiff must generally offer concrete and specific facts upon which he can be awarded damages. Here, the city is asking to be compensated for "pride," maybe concessions, etc. Pride is simply not compensable. Things like concessions and their take of the ticket prices, etc. are usually the type of thing a court would pronounce as being too speculative to be compensable.
My guess at this point is the same as it's been since the beginning -- this particular case will likely result in a verdict for the Plaintiff in an amount equal to what would have concretely been earned under the lease (perhaps minus what the city would have lost in their performance of the lease), and no specific performance.
As to Schultz' suit, it's so bizarre that I expect it to go down on a Motion for Summary Judgment, or maybe even a Motion to Dismiss. I find the legal theory there to way too "out there" for a court to undo a 9-figure transaction where both parties generally got what they wanted.