DJ's left nut |
10-26-2011 01:05 PM |
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikeyis4dcats.
(Post 8050737)
I know about contracts, I do write contracts routinely. I am not a lawyer.
But you can't argue both ways, you either go for the strict interpretation or you go for the "intent". MU wants it both ways.
|
For someone that knows all about contracts, you sure don't seem to know when/how they can be enforced. You should probably brush up on that before you write another one - it's kinda important.
MU can absolutely argue that it is governed by the letter of the contract it actually signed (i.e. its previous membership agreement and the by-laws it operated under at that time).
It can then argue that the ambiguity contained in said agreement makes it clear that they are subject to little to no exit fees. They can argue that the liquidated damages provision is punitive in nature and therefore unenforceable. They can argue all kinds of neat shit that would call the enforceability of the fees into question and greatly diminish the actual value of the cause of action.
Hence - they will settle at around $8 million because that's probably the 'true' value of the suit.
Again - I've already gone over this. Please try to pay attention with the rest of the class.
|