Friday, February 10, 2006
Anaheim strikes out.
I really haven't been following the case that closely, but it seems wrong to me that a jury could rule for the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim in the suit brought by the City of Anaheim, at least on a breach-of-contract theory. Does anyone really think the City is getting what it paid for? I'm not even sure why the question of breach has to go to the jury at all.
On the other hand, I can see why the jury might not have credited the City's claim for damages. "City officials said the change cost Anaheim at least $100 million in lost tourism, publicity and so-called "impressions" -- buzz the city gets each time its name appears in the national media in conjunction with a major-league baseball team." That sounds more than a little speculative. Maybe asking for too much hurt the City on liability.
On the other hand, I can see why the jury might not have credited the City's claim for damages. "City officials said the change cost Anaheim at least $100 million in lost tourism, publicity and so-called "impressions" -- buzz the city gets each time its name appears in the national media in conjunction with a major-league baseball team." That sounds more than a little speculative. Maybe asking for too much hurt the City on liability.
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]