Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="CuseOnly, post: 3080756, member: 2804"] I think the point here is that in the past they might not have had the legal footing or it would have happened. Now they are spending 118 million, roughly 4 times what it cost to build it and they feel they now have the legal footing. I did some research and it appears that the things I noticed were below. 1. The expected "LIFE" of the building 2. Most courts dont seen to like perpetual contracts - meaning that they better be extremely specific and not ambiguous at all or they usually get voided 3. SU is making significant changes to the Dome that make it a new structure. If they aren't, then what is enough short of knocking it down and starting over? 4. Does Carrier really want their name on a building when the school for all practical purposes doesn't I am amazed that the terms of the original agreement havent come to light yet. [/QUOTE]