View Single Post
09-19-2004, 07:24 PM
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Out There
Posts: 54,870
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by GabbyDugan
I have not missed the point, I simply do not buy into taking this course of action. The purpose of your lawsuit is to get outside parties to take legal action influencing the NHL and NHLPA to negotiate under terms that take the interests of outside parties into consideration.

I own my own business, and one of the realities and risks is that my customers, suppliers, competitors, governments, and non-related businesses in my locality may take actions that benefit or harm my business. If they take actions that are clearly in violation of the law, then I'll be on the phone and speed dial my lawyer and seek remedies.

In this case, the Collective Bargaining Agreement between the NHL and NHLPA has been terminated by one party in a manner that is completely legal under the laws of Canada and the United States. It seems to have been done in a rather sloppy, shoddy, and somewhat angry manner - but a perfectly legal manner, nevertheless.

Paying premium property fees/rent which in turn go to helping the NHL team build new arenas? Even if they are, almost every lease, property purchase agreement, business license, or other commercial contract has attachments, clauses, and so on specifying that third parties are not entitled to any benefits, claims, or damages from the said contract.
Spot on.

However what might be interesting would be for season ticket holders to demand their entire prepayments back for the 2004-05 season. At the moment the NHL clubs have the use of that money.

Wetcoaster is offline