Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Bruton Smith's Lawsuit Against the City of Concord Comes to a Head

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Bruton Smith's Lawsuit Against the City of Concord Comes to a Head

    http://www.bangshift.com/blog/Bruton...to-a-Head.html

  • #2
    Re: Bruton Smith's Lawsuit Against the City of Concord Comes to a Head

    How could anybody enter into an $80 Million agreement without a solid contract that was reveiwed by attorneys for both parties and signed and notarized?

    THis dosen't make any sense. ???

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Bruton Smith's Lawsuit Against the City of Concord Comes to a Head

      O. Bruton Smith is a smart cookie, and if he didn't get it in writing - then he deserves to get stuck.
      Act your age, not your shoe size. - Prince

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Bruton Smith's Lawsuit Against the City of Concord Comes to a Head

        Originally posted by Hemi Joel
        How could anybody enter into an $80 Million agreement without a solid contract that was reveiwed by attorneys for both parties and signed and notarized?

        THis dosen't make any sense. ???
        WELL IT SAID THEY(THE CITY) WHERE TO PAY OVER 40 YEAR..
        he might be forcing their hand to pay up for "non payment"
        sounds like the contract is for payment over 40 years.
        and they are not paying the bill. so he's calling in the money..
        fight'n city hall is never fun...
        we'll see

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Bruton Smith's Lawsuit Against the City of Concord Comes to a Head

          The agreement is that the city can pay over 40 years....all of a sudden he thinks that is too long a time.
          That which you manifest is before you.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Bruton Smith's Lawsuit Against the City of Concord Comes to a Head

            Just like Judge Wapner always said "Get it in writing."

            And I wonder how Bruton's expensive cadre of pettyfogging lawyers are getting around NC's "Statute of Frauds?"

            The Statute of Frauds requires many documents to be in writing, including the following:

            A promise which by its very terms cannot be performed with one year. . . .

            The statute . . . requires that every "essential term" be in some written form. This language has usually been interpreted to require at least the following information: (1) the identity of the parties; (2) the subject matter of the contract; (3) the terms and conditions of the agreement; (4) the consideration given and received; and (5) the signature of the parties. As long as some document, note, or combination of papers contain this essential information, a court will enforce the contract. A related rule states that if there is a writing no oral agreement will be entertained to contradict the written agreement.
            (Quote courtesy of Forman Rossabi Black, PA, Greensboro, NC http://www.frb-law.com/contract.htm)

            DOH!

            "

            Comment

            Working...
            X