Reply to thread

Message

[QUOTE="orangecuse, post: 1663444, member: 668"]
If SU proceeds with this huge overhaul, placing a shell around the existing building, new footprint, roof, etc., does that constitute enough for being deemed a new building?  It's not just a cosmetic redo.  An argument could clearly exist that it's not the same building.   A possible legal ruling that the [I]spirit[/I] and [I]intent [/I]of said agreement is void/no longer enforceable due to its vast scope, transformation, etc., making it no longer recognizable as the original.  I'm not aware of a precise/similar precedent, though it appears individually & separately, somewhat more complicated than simply a given/anticipated judgement on Carrier's behalf if they play hardball.  Placing an advertising value (lost) is difficult from a tangible sense.  I don't think a court would so easily rule against or hammer a non-profit university/institution for lost advertising dollars, especially when that corp. isn't paying an annual amount for such advertising, marketing, etc. as others are today.  A probable better solution for both party's would be coming together to reach a new agreement/reasonable compromise vs. spending $$$ on litigation and all that that entails.
[/QUOTE]

Verification

What is a Syracuse fan's favorite color?