|
Title: Judge rules against Wilkins re: injunction Post by: Gold on September 11, 2008, 11:41:30 am I'm not surprised. http://www.newson6.com/global/story.asp?s=8991868
Title: Judge rules against Wilkins re: injunction Post by: Conan71 on September 11, 2008, 01:29:45 pm Non-binding agreement. Doesn't that give you about the same legs oral contract in court (or even less so)?
I hate to see what happened to Will, but believe the judge was correct in his ruling. Title: Judge rules against Wilkins re: injunction Post by: Gold on September 11, 2008, 02:49:51 pm Depends what the oral agreement is for and what's at stake. I can think of some scenarios where it might work, but they mostly involve agreements between lawyers where the court is ordering you to come to some sort of agreement.
But for this kind of thing, yeah, you're right. It's worth the paper it was printed on. This whole thing got blown way out of proportion. People need to not be so paranoid in this town. Title: Judge rules against Wilkins re: injunction Post by: Wrinkle on September 11, 2008, 02:56:32 pm The Mayor paid BOK $7.1 million on less.
Title: Judge rules against Wilkins re: injunction Post by: RecycleMichael on September 11, 2008, 03:17:04 pm You just can't stay on topic without bashing the Mayor, wrinkle...
This was about a real estate transaction with no documentation. The judge was wise. Title: Judge rules against Wilkins re: injunction Post by: Renaissance on September 11, 2008, 04:35:08 pm He may have a claim for reliance damages on the cancellation of the contract for exclusive negotiations. It completely depends on what the instrument for exclusive negotiation looks like. These things tend to have escape clauses for ending the negotiating period early. Sometimes they'll have releases too.
The more interesting question will be whether TDA breached its contract to negotiate, and if so, whether Wilkins is entitled to damages for the breach. Title: Judge rules against Wilkins re: injunction Post by: Wrinkle on September 11, 2008, 05:13:45 pm quote: As I recall, the Mayor injected a "Moral Obligation" heretofore unregistered anywhere. The similarities are uncanny, and not a change of topic. Did I mention a stupid political move on her part? Title: Judge rules against Wilkins re: injunction Post by: RecycleMichael on September 11, 2008, 05:42:39 pm quote: They both involved city government and money. Yes, I see the circle of life now. You are trying to link a failed airline and a guy trying to build some townhouses. Why stop there? The court ruling saying the guy had nothing in writing and no case...it is amazingly just like when the Beatles broke up over Yoko Ono. Title: Judge rules against Wilkins re: injunction Post by: Curmudgeon on September 11, 2008, 06:28:19 pm quote: +1 for the Beatles reference Title: Judge rules against Wilkins re: injunction Post by: Wrinkle on September 11, 2008, 10:20:06 pm quote: It was a LAND deal, one declared illegal by the Feds, thus our Mayor offered up our skins instead. I'm not linking his deal and hers, just the premise, you know word of honor, moral obligation, verbal contract. Getting the harmony yet? Naw, what am I thinking, it might help if you change your crowd. PS: That's money directly out of my pocket, and yours. |