Derby Trail Forums

Derby Trail Forums (http://www.derbytrail.com/forums/index.php)
-   The Paddock (http://www.derbytrail.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=2)
-   -   Lanzman sues IEAH (http://www.derbytrail.com/forums/showthread.php?t=30080)

Sightseek 06-04-2009 04:12 PM

Lanzman sues IEAH
 
The lawsuit contends that IEAH violated the contract by subsequently selling more than 10 percent of I Want Revenge without notifying Lanzman prior to the sale, and that IEAH has yet to provide documents of those sales.

http://www.drf.com/news/article/104380.html

Merlinsky 06-04-2009 06:17 PM

I'm confused though. What damages is he arguing? He can call them stupidheads for not telling him about the sale but is he saying he wanted to be able to have first refusal or something? It seems like you could just spell that out. If there are no damages, exactly what would he be suing to have happen? He got the bonus he was entitled to. A contract is a contract and I suppose if they breached then that's not good but there's a point where the judge might say 'uh yeah, you're right in principle, here's $1 now don't you feel special?'

Kasept 06-05-2009 07:11 AM

There is more to it than simple administrative or procedural omissions.

GBBob 06-05-2009 07:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Merlinsky
I'm confused though. What damages is he arguing? He can call them stupidheads for not telling him about the sale but is he saying he wanted to be able to have first refusal or something? It seems like you could just spell that out. If there are no damages, exactly what would he be suing to have happen? He got the bonus he was entitled to. A contract is a contract and I suppose if they breached then that's not good but there's a point where the judge might say 'uh yeah, you're right in principle, here's $1 now don't you feel special?'

Since he is still 50% owner he obviously wanted to have some control, or perhaps right of refusal of any new owners that might be brought on board. You're right...a contract is a contract, but it seems they breached it, although I found it interesting that any damages he is seeking are not detailed?

dellinger63 06-05-2009 09:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GBBob
Since he is still 50% owner he obviously wanted to have some control, or perhaps right of refusal of any new owners that might be brought on board. You're right...a contract is a contract, but it seems they breached it, although I found it interesting that any damages he is seeking are not detailed?

IMO depends how the contract was written. If in fact there is a clause that says he should have right of approval for any sale of 10% or more he is entitiled to punitive damages in addition to real damages which may be the essence of the case. Wish it was Federal so we could see the whole complaint

Sightseek 07-14-2009 03:21 PM

Counter-claim has been filed by IEAH:

http://www.drf.com/news/article/105496.html

parsixfarms 07-14-2009 03:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dellinger63
IMO depends how the contract was written. If in fact there is a clause that says he should have right of approval for any sale of 10% or more he is entitiled to punitive damages in addition to real damages which may be the essence of the case. Wish it was Federal so we could see the whole complaint

Punitive damages are typically not permitted in a private contract dispute between parties to that contract.

Fearless Leader 07-14-2009 06:49 PM

It is always entertaining when these guys are in the news. Sad, but entertaining.

Merlinsky 07-15-2009 01:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by parsixfarms
Punitive damages are typically not permitted in a private contract dispute between parties to that contract.

Yeah see that's why I was confused.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:02 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.