Proceeds from the ads below will be donated to the
Bob Wuesthoff scholarship fund.
Monday, January 09, 2006 |
LA/Anaheim Trial Starts
... and in this viewer's opinion, there's a better than 50/50 chance that Arte will lose. The court has already ruled that intent information is admissable to the proceedings, something that's almost certain to make the trial hinge on that intent, which in turn means the Angels will have a hard time explaining away the old "Anaheim" on the uniforms and in the standings. Funniest unrelated part:
[Rex] Hudler, the Angels' irrepressible television analyst, said lawyers have asked him to explain how the team markets itself on broadcasts. He said Monday he would be excited to testify if needed."I'm excited about most everything, including taking out the garbage on Wednesday," he said. "I'd be thrilled to help the process any way I can."
Comments:
"...the Angels will have a hard time explaining away the old 'Anaheim' on the uniforms and in the standings..."
The uniforms and standings have nothing to do with it. It's simply a question of whether the parties specifically intended that Anaheim would be the only city or region in the team's name. And the City is going to have its own difficulties explaining why they simply said that the name only had to include Anaheim if what they really meant was something completely different - that the name would be either [nickname] of Anaheim or Anaheim [nickname]. Had the City hired me as their attorney, that's the language I would have suggested. I don't know why nobody in the City, and none of their lawyers, was capable of coming up with those words. Pretty simple stuff if you ask me.
And then there's the part of the contract that specifically says that the team gets to market itself however it wants, and has NO obligation at all to promote the City.
So, the City is going to have to try to convince a jury that the marketing/promotion part of the contract doesn't mean what it says, either.
The uniforms and standings have nothing to do with it. It's simply a question of whether the parties specifically intended that Anaheim would be the only city or region in the team's name. And the City is going to have its own difficulties explaining why they simply said that the name only had to include Anaheim if what they really meant was something completely different - that the name would be either [nickname] of Anaheim or Anaheim [nickname]. Had the City hired me as their attorney, that's the language I would have suggested. I don't know why nobody in the City, and none of their lawyers, was capable of coming up with those words. Pretty simple stuff if you ask me.
And then there's the part of the contract that specifically says that the team gets to market itself however it wants, and has NO obligation at all to promote the City.
So, the City is going to have to try to convince a jury that the marketing/promotion part of the contract doesn't mean what it says, either.
# posted by 
: 1/10/2006 12:14:00 AM
: 1/10/2006 12:14:00 AM
I recall Disney's Winged ANGELS logo not having any Anaheim in it. Guess Eisner took care of the city council in a way that made the lords of Anaheim look the other way...
# posted by : 1/10/2006 01:46:00 AM
: 1/10/2006 01:46:00 AM
Matthew -- the judge in the article said the sections dealing with this issue were unclear, which I think means the case will hinge on intent.
Rev -- indeed it didn't.
Rev -- indeed it didn't.
Interpretation of every contract hinges on the parties' intentions - specifically, their mutual intentions at the time the contract was signed. The only issue the judge decided was whether the language was susceptible of more than one interpretation; when that is the case, the jury gets to hear what's called "parol evidence," meaning evidence from each side as to what they meant. Parol evidence only comes in if the contract language is ambiguous. Here, the judge found that the contract is open to more than one interpretation, so evidence comes in concerning what the parties intended.
My first comment simply meant to highlight that there are other provisions in the contract that cast some doubt on the City's theory - if it was the parties' intent that the Angels would help promote Anaheim, then why does the contract say elsewhere that the team has no such obligation?
Of course, the team wants to argue that the contract is unambiguous; if the contract is unambiguous, the team clearly wins. Contract says only that the team name must include the word Anaheim, and it does. The only way the City can win is by proving that the contract is ambiguous. Of course, the jury might still decide that the contract means what it says.
My first comment simply meant to highlight that there are other provisions in the contract that cast some doubt on the City's theory - if it was the parties' intent that the Angels would help promote Anaheim, then why does the contract say elsewhere that the team has no such obligation?
Of course, the team wants to argue that the contract is unambiguous; if the contract is unambiguous, the team clearly wins. Contract says only that the team name must include the word Anaheim, and it does. The only way the City can win is by proving that the contract is ambiguous. Of course, the jury might still decide that the contract means what it says.
# posted by : 1/10/2006 11:05:00 AM
: 1/10/2006 11:05:00 AM
My prediction is that Arte Moreno will win the right to call the team the Los Angeles Angels. Arte will lose his "of Anaheim" argument. The Disney $20 million dollar deal with the city of Anaheim only had one-quarter of its lease satisfied before LA Angels of Anaheim surfaced a year ago. That makes $15 million plus interest that Senor Moreno should reimburse the city of Anaheim. The interest from 1996 would effectively double the $15 million to $30 million. That doubling was as of when the lease was broken in January 2005. Therefore more interest should be added to that. The legal costs for the city of Anaheim are $6.5 million to date. I believe Arte will be made to pay Anaheim's court costs.
At this point in time I forecast the over/under for the amount Arte Moreno will have to pay the city of Anaheim to be $40 million. I will leave room for error and add a plus or minus $10 million postscript to that. There is NO way Anaheim will win a $200 million verdict or Arte will walk away having to pay zilch.
The name change court case is a marvelous advertising tactic. But like most advertising it must be paid for. This will not end up with a new recall election for the mayor of Anaheim.
When there is a parade for the World Champion Los Angeles Angels don't have the mayor and all of his friends ride the first fire engine in the parade. Fans will see the mayor and chant "Bring back Steve Finley!"
Summary--Arte wins and keeps the name change to Los Angeles Angels and the city of Anaheim recovers $40 million. I was in the Orange County Court House for jury duty on 17 November 2005 but was not selected. When were you last on jury duty?
Yetijuice
At this point in time I forecast the over/under for the amount Arte Moreno will have to pay the city of Anaheim to be $40 million. I will leave room for error and add a plus or minus $10 million postscript to that. There is NO way Anaheim will win a $200 million verdict or Arte will walk away having to pay zilch.
The name change court case is a marvelous advertising tactic. But like most advertising it must be paid for. This will not end up with a new recall election for the mayor of Anaheim.
When there is a parade for the World Champion Los Angeles Angels don't have the mayor and all of his friends ride the first fire engine in the parade. Fans will see the mayor and chant "Bring back Steve Finley!"
Summary--Arte wins and keeps the name change to Los Angeles Angels and the city of Anaheim recovers $40 million. I was in the Orange County Court House for jury duty on 17 November 2005 but was not selected. When were you last on jury duty?
Yetijuice
# posted by : 1/10/2006 08:42:00 PM
: 1/10/2006 08:42:00 PMNewer› ‹Older
 |
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.