Garth Brooks vs Integris

[ljbab728]

This is obviously a very emotional issue for Garth and I can understand how he feels. I do, however, think he is going to be on the losing end of this lawsuit.

http://newsok.com/article/3641551

[OKCisOK4me]

Its stupid if you ask me. Guess he should have had the verbal agreement noterized.

[oneforone]

He gave them the money outright. He should have taken the time to sit down with a lawyer and identify exactly how, when and where the money will be spent.

Everybody with an ounce of common sense knows words are not worth anything in the business world until its on paper and inked by all involved parties. Let's face it he donated that money with publicity in mind. The momma factor is just a one screen to tug on the hearts of the jury. If she meant that much why didn't he lay down the law back then and demand answers in 2005 and so on. Honestly I don't think he thought it would go to court he likely planned on INTEGRIS cowering and settling to avoid bad press. He didn't realize this not their first rodeo and they have probably had this happen before.

I honestly think he was under the impression the hospital was under his thumb. When he finally asked for it back I can see why they said they will make him work like hell for it. I'm sure they were irritated that he reneged on the offer all the time and expense they went to get him to donate. When he finally donated it appears it was by surprise. They expected to sit down with him and sign off on the details.

Both sides are guilty of playing the other. If Garth should be mad at someone he needs to find the nearest mirror after that he should fire his financial staff. Any good accountant and lawyer will tell their clients get it in writing and let us review it. Together we will negotiate the terms and then you can sign off on it and give them a check. It sounds to me his head was bigger than his brain in 2005. He should not get a do over because he made a bad decision. What happened here is what happens in non profits and charities everyday. Charity staff are usually experts in the world of sales. After all you have to be persuasive to raise money. People have to be sold in giving to a charity. They don't just do it because you say we help people with ______.

Once you give away money it's gone. This is like a friend asking you for money because the need groceries. You give them the money with notion they are going grocery shopping. Instead they take the money and go party. You get mad them all you want. In the end they can do what they please with money you gave them. Because its their money the Isecond you give it to them. What comes down to is this , never give away money without doing your homework.

[RadicalModerate]

Since the name "Integris" has a vague, subliminal connection with "Integrity" . . .
Shouldn't they (or it) have done what they (it) said they (it) would do?

Or did they (it) spend it (the money formerly known as Garth's) on TV advertising?

[OKCTalker]

Any conditional gift of this size should be clearly negotiated and memorialized in writing. Both parties - Brooks and Integris - share in the blame for not doing that.

Given the clear misunderstanding, the right thing for Integris to do is return the money. They'll never know how many future donations they WON'T receive due to this, but this will certainly hurt them. And should.

[Sheetkeecker]

The name Integris is going to be run into the dirt at a level they can scarcely imagine because of this. To do this to a man who gave you 500K and all he asked was you put his dead Mom's name on it is completely despicable--it is as simple as that. they will deeply regret their actions.

[SoonerDave]

The deterioration Integris' public "goodwill capital" (if you will) continued yesterday, as an Integris' exec's email was released in which he stated (apparently as the disagreement between the parties started to escalate), "We may not be able to keep him from his money, but we can make him work hard as **** for it." (That was a paraphrase).

Its pretty clear this has deteriorated into a competitive urination challenge between two substantive egos, one a businessman, one a music star. Neither comes out of this with clean hands, but IMHO Integris looks *especially* stupid for letting it get this far. The bad PR tied to this is almost unmeasurable. It won't affect Brooks' one whie. While I'm not someone who has any kind of funds to make anything like that kind of gift to a hospital, but if I were, and had been solicited as aggressively as it appears Brooks was by Integris, I'd darned sure give any such gift a serious second thought.

The clear sign to me Integris is on the defensive is then their PR front man did *not* issue the standard "we don't discuss ongoing litigation," but said "we are convinced we were within the law in this issue" and tried to defend Integris in a newsbite. That, to me, is a company on the defensive and treading water.

As I said, regardless of who is really right or wrong, or who promised what, I think its incalculably silly of Integris to have let it go this far.

[RadicalModerate]

This is what happens when you try to run roughshod over a beloved, retired, figure in American Country Music.
(and his mama)

It's a good thing that Toby Keith isn't involved.
Things could get just a little ugly . . . In a good way.

(I feel a song a-comin' on . . .
"There was a time in this great land
when a handshake meant your word . . .
But greedy legaleze has turned it to a turd . . .")

Maybe Integris needs to rerun that heartwarming "Valentines Day Multiple Kidney Transplant" ad a few (thousand) more times in order to put duct tape on their image . . . That, or counter the "turd" move with a brand new ad for their state-of-the-art-cutting edge Proctology Clinic. Perhaps showing the removal of the heads of those decision-makers at the top from their collective asses.

Perhaps they could even hire Red Green as a spokesperson . . .
(And thereby squander the rest of Garth's Gift)

(" . . . and the thunder rolls . . . .)

(Did I forget to mention Garth's wife?)
(and a song about a time when a man's [person's] word was [his or her] bond?)


At the end of the day, I am glad that it is no longer Baptist Medical Center.
(and probably a lot of Baptists are too)

[Sheetkeecker]

I can't wait for Toby Keith to have his say, he'll likely go there a put a BOOT in someone's A**!

[RadicalModerate]

Just another clip for The Integris Proctology Clinic ad.

[Questor]

An oral agreement is in fact a contract if a promise is made based upon a consideration such as the exchange of money, the two parties are of sound mind and have the legal capacity to enter into the agreement, and all minimum legality requirements are met (such as everyone is over 18). I get so frustrated when people assume that because something isn't in writing it isn't an agreement. The fact is if you do all of the above verbally you are locked into doing what you say by law. The problem that arises is it is too easy to get into a "he said/she said" when there isn't something to document the transaction. This could be as simple as one side having a different recollection or understanding of the details of the terms of the agreement than another, or as terrible as one side lying to the other. I understand the reasoning and generally agree that it is always smartest to get something in writing that is held by all parties that lawyers have looked over to make sure it is clear what has been agreed to. But on the flip side of that I think that is really indicative of a system that is corrupt where people don't really think they owe anyone anything else unless it has been blessed by lawyers and documented in as air-tight a condition as possible. I'm not a lawyer but I don't like what Integris is saying. Even if it is legal I have to wonder about its morality. Perhaps Integris should be reminded of its Baptist roots and its board should take a hard look at itself and ask if causing someone, a donor, so much pain is the right thing to do, regardless of whether or not it is the legal thing to do. I thought the whole point of the Hippocratic oath and of the Baptist convention was the ideal of following a law of a higher authority even more just than the laws of man? Consider that Integris.

[SoonerDave]

Integris may well believe they are legally right in all this. Seems to me that, somewhere, someone should have explained to them the "high cost of being right." They look silly.

[Midtowner]

An oral agreement is in fact a contract if a promise is made based upon a consideration such as the exchange of money, the two parties are of sound mind and have the legal capacity to enter into the agreement, and all minimum legality requirements are met (such as everyone is over 18). I get so frustrated when people assume that because something isn't in writing it isn't an agreement. The fact is if you do all of the above verbally you are locked into doing what you say by law. The problem that arises is it is too easy to get into a "he said/she said" when there isn't something to document the transaction. This could be as simple as one side having a different recollection or understanding of the details of the terms of the agreement than another, or as terrible as one side lying to the other. I understand the reasoning and generally agree that it is always smartest to get something in writing that is held by all parties that lawyers have looked over to make sure it is clear what has been agreed to. But on the flip side of that I think that is really indicative of a system that is corrupt where people don't really think they owe anyone anything else unless it has been blessed by lawyers and documented in as air-tight a condition as possible. I'm not a lawyer but I don't like what Integris is saying. Even if it is legal I have to wonder about its morality. Perhaps Integris should be reminded of its Baptist roots and its board should take a hard look at itself and ask if causing someone, a donor, so much pain is the right thing to do, regardless of whether or not it is the legal thing to do. I thought the whole point of the Hippocratic oath and of the Baptist convention was the ideal of following a law of a higher authority even more just than the laws of man? Consider that Integris.

It may be a contract, but as it is for more than $500, it's governed by the statute of frauds. I haven't looked at the pleadings, but I'm guessing this is an action for fraudulent inducement rather than on a contract.

[RadicalModerate]

I haven't looked at "the pleadings" either . . . as if my opinion mattered . . .
But if "Integris" isn't bleeding out the ass including extra money for "pain and suffering"--in the direction of Garth Brooks, Inc. His Heirs and Assigns--with interest and punitive damages, we have learned nothing (in regard to "lawyers") since "To Kill A Mockingbird" . . . was his name Atticus something or other?

Not even putting on the table the issue of "Fraud".

(P.S. Garth Brooks is for real. "Integris" appears to be fraudently sketchy . . .
Go Cowboys . . . Who said an OSU education ain't worth [schite].?)

Just to put things in perspective . . .
(while never admitting I'm one of the 1% or the 99%)
(for The Jury . . . in the name of harmony and justice.)

The Pirated Version . . . (direct from Somalia)

[Sheetkeecker]

My guess is if they want a big fight, Mr. Brooks has the assets to hire some ++pretty good lawyers++.
Never a good idea to piss off a cowboy, for no reason, after he has just given you $500,000.
They act like it was a $10 donation. If they have any kind of lawyers at all, they would cut their losses today and settle with Garth.
The big wigs there probably gave themselves BONUSES with that money.

[RadicalModerate]

I'm thinkin' we need to take a moment to reflect . . .
OK (reflection time ovah): Garth--and all of us'ns--Win.
Common Law. (Sorta like the Magna Carta attempted to approach. =)

Now "It" has been "tried in The Media/Court of Public Opinion" . . .
Hopefully the honest citizens of Rogers County--or wherever--will provide a just verdict.
Or just a verdict.
As the case may be.

[Sheetkeecker]

Betting folks should call to Las Vegas and try to get a piece of this action. Local jury.

[RadicalModerate]

What are the Vegas odds on "Integris" losing all ephemeral credibility in the eyes of the consumer and The Garth Brooks LLC/Medical Care Foundation renaming/rebranding the entire enterprize when the title is signed over?

And/Or donating it to St. Anthony?

In the name of Jesus . . .

I would guess 2 to 1.

(Remember the whining in here about Toby Keith's Architectual Preferences for the child cancer care center? Geez . . . Louise . . .)

[oneforone]

To me this is nothing more than a watermaking contest between the two of them. I heard from a friend of a friend at the Yukon Hospital. They tried to give the money back however the court case was filed and the --it storm had already started. Therefore it was just best to go court and get it over with. Both are going to lose face big time on this. However Garth can go back under his rock in Owasso and people will forget about his gargantuan lack of common sense. INTEGRIS
will suffer the effects of this because of the all the mouth breathers out there that see Garth as the innocent victim. He was careless and he stirred the pot just as much as they did. Anywhere along the way he could have worked a reasonable solution. However, I think he wanted the same recognition as Jerry Lewis has with the MDA. I have several people in my family that work at area hospitals. The general consensus is 500,000 might buy a waiting room being named after you. To get a building with your name on it you have give millions if not tens of millions. The Yukon hospital like clears that number in a week or two.

Both would be best served by living with whatever the jury says and not do another media interview. Enough has been said about this it's time for everyone to move on.

[SoonerQueen]

They ought to give him his money back and then name the women's dept after his mom anyway. It would be a good PR move and it would be a way to give back to Garth for all the many charitable things he has done.

[SoonerDave]

To me this is nothing more than a watermaking contest between the two of them. I heard from a friend of a friend at the Yukon Hospital. They tried to give the money back however the court case was filed and the --it storm had already started. Therefore it was just best to go court and get it over with. Both are going to lose face big time on this. However Garth can go back under his rock in Owasso and people will forget about his gargantuan lack of common sense. INTEGRIS
will suffer the effects of this because of the all the mouth breathers out there that see Garth as the innocent victim. He was careless and he stirred the pot just as much as they did. Anywhere along the way he could have worked a reasonable solution. However, I think he wanted the same recognition as Jerry Lewis has with the MDA. I have several people in my family that work at area hospitals. The general consensus is 500,000 might buy a waiting room being named after you. To get a building with your name on it you have give millions if not tens of millions. The Yukon hospital like clears that number in a week or two.

Both would be best served by living with whatever the jury says and not do another media interview. Enough has been said about this it's time for everyone to move on.

I would agree with you 100% if not for the fact Integris apparently started this process by soliciting him first. If they started the ball rolling, and even broached the notion of the naming business, they should follow through. Surely Brooks didn't ask for the hassle.

[Bunty]

I would imagine if any of the Brooks did something notable in the medical field, there would be no fight.

[Questor]

Here's a much more clearly-written article on the circumstances. According to it, the hospital made verbal promises and went so far as to show him artistic renderings of buildings with his mother's name on them. So somebody changed their mind on this deal. Who that was and whether or not that's legal I guess is what this case is all about.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/nation...2DQ_story.html

An update: Interesting, apparently Integris still has the $500k setting in an account, unspent:

http://www.nydailynews.com/life-styl...sEnabled=false

[MsProudSooner]

This is just an incredibly stupid move on the part of James Moore and Integris. If I were Mr. Moore's boss, I would have told him he was fired if he couldn't resolve this amicably. Moore sounds like an example of everything that is wrong with Corporate America today. Even if Garth doesn't get his money back, Integris is the big loser.

[RadicalModerate]

Well said, MsProudSooner . . .
The only question I would have about it is whether "incredibly stupid move" is an anomoly or SOP.
Your third sentence answers that question. Thank you.

I think Garth should get his money back--with interest--and punitive damages.
Thank goodness he--and his lawyers--aren't greedy.