Reply to thread

Message

[QUOTE="reedny, post: 1663690, member: 1423"]
Well we agree on this (red). As to the rest, not so much. If the building's gutted, there's obviously an argument that any gift contract is void.

If the reno is a face-lift instead of a re-build, then the validity of the contract (which we haven't seen) will become an issue. Once that happens, scope, reasonableness, equity, public policy and other issues will be argued. Since this contract involved a novel concept at the time (rights to a college sports facility), many consequences (including the financial ones) were not foreseeable. Carrier will likely advance your theory (a deal's a deal), but SU has a compelling argument that the contract's terms are impeding repair of the building and are unenforceable. I would also expect the U to point out that the donor has recovered its investment many times over and that its revenues are far beyond any reasonable expectations at the time of the gift. The decision would then weigh each position. SU might lose. But neither would it surprise me if the Court reformed or voided the deal. One thing is for sure: the litigation would not be as simple as looking up "perpetual" in websters. Hopefully it won't come to that and the stakeholders can find a middle ground (if Carrier's willing to re-up). If not, gut it and move on.
[/QUOTE]

Verification

What is a Syracuse fan's favorite color?