Eleran Posted February 5, 2017 Share Posted February 5, 2017 (edited) 10 minutes ago, garfield said: So, Mr./Mrs. Lawyer, am I right about the interpretation? Two people can write up a contract agreeing to anything. But there are a host of reasons why any particular provision of a contract will be thrown out in court as unenforceable. (Eg. although this isn't specifically an employment contract with a non-compete clause, most jurisdictions have statutory or common law restrictions on what can be enforced with respect to non-compete clauses, no matter what the parties may have signed their name to). Otherwise, first year law students wouldn't need to spend an entire year on basic Contract law. Edited February 5, 2017 by Eleran spelling and grammar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Musicman1084 Posted February 6, 2017 Share Posted February 6, 2017 5 hours ago, N.E. Brigand said: This is absolutely correct. If a donor gives money to a non-profit, either with the stipulation that it be used to pay for a particular activity, or that it is meant for a particular season, then the accountants consider that money to be "temporarily restricted", either for "purpose" or for "time". In the former case, it doesn't become "unrestricted" until the organization undertakes the requested activity, and if the organization does not do so, the donor should be repaid. (There are also "permanently restricted" gifts, e.g., for an endowment.) Yes, exactly, a point that I made a while back that I feel many people don't know about. If Crown is smart, they recognize that they need to pass the onus of honoring the agreements of the donation down to the members they are applying it towards. If a donor makes a donation and says it's to be applied toward a member as long as the member continues to march for two years, Crown would be on the hook for that cash if the member doesn't march the second year. By writing into the member's contract that they must repay it if they go elsewhere, they are covering themselves in the event they have to return that cash to the donor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N.E. Brigand Posted February 6, 2017 Share Posted February 6, 2017 10 minutes ago, Musicman1084 said: Yes, exactly, a point that I made a while back that I feel many people don't know about. If Crown is smart, they recognize that they need to pass the onus of honoring the agreements of the donation down to the members they are applying it towards. If a donor makes a donation and says it's to be applied toward a member as long as the member continues to march for two years, Crown would be on the hook for that cash if the member doesn't march the second year. By writing into the member's contract that they must repay it if they go elsewhere, they are covering themselves in the event they have to return that cash to the donor. However, as far as I know, this whole idea about Crown's scholarship policy (which we actually haven't seen other than a reference in an email) being affected by donor intention was was just a hypothetical proposed by garfield early in this discussion. It's quite possible that Crown put this policy in place for other reasons entirely. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted February 6, 2017 Share Posted February 6, 2017 1 hour ago, Eleran said: Two people can write up a contract agreeing to anything. But there are a host of reasons why any particular provision of a contract will be thrown out in court as unenforceable. (Eg. although this isn't specifically an employment contract with a non-compete clause, most jurisdictions have statutory or common law restrictions on what can be enforced with respect to non-compete clauses, no matter what the parties may have signed their name to). Otherwise, first year law students wouldn't need to spend an entire year on basic Contract law. And, in your opinion, the provision Crown supposedly wrote into their contract would be unenforceable in front of a small claims judge? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted February 6, 2017 Share Posted February 6, 2017 (edited) 38 minutes ago, Musicman1084 said: Yes, exactly, a point that I made a while back that I feel many people don't know about. If Crown is smart, they recognize that they need to pass the onus of honoring the agreements of the donation down to the members they are applying it towards. If a donor makes a donation and says it's to be applied toward a member as long as the member continues to march for two years, Crown would be on the hook for that cash if the member doesn't march the second year. By writing into the member's contract that they must repay it if they go elsewhere, they are covering themselves in the event they have to return that cash to the donor. I don't think this is right. While the ED would have failed in honoring the restriction the donor proscribed, I don't think he would be "on the hook" for any money if the MM stiffed them. It's not as if the donor gets his money back. Rather, it's chalked up as a mark against the ED for not finding the appropriate recipient but, if the corps is successful in recouping the money from the MM, they have the opportunity to apply it to another MM who can live up to the donor's restrictions. Edited February 6, 2017 by garfield Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BoaDci Posted February 6, 2017 Share Posted February 6, 2017 Go Falcons 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eleran Posted February 6, 2017 Share Posted February 6, 2017 (edited) 46 minutes ago, garfield said: And, in your opinion, the provision Crown supposedly wrote into their contract would be unenforceable in front of a small claims judge? I'm saying that while I am not an anti-trust specialist and can't begin to say for sure, I would feel fairly confident arguing against such a clause, especially one that is not triggered by members not marching the next year with the corps (i.e. sitting out the season), but only by marching with another corps. Whether it's small claims or regular trial court doesn't change the applicable legal standards, just the procedures for the court itself and how cases are argued - there is always uncertainty there as to how much the judges will rule based upon legal principles or by what is expedient and equitable. My gut would say that a small claims court would be likely to rule for the marching member, but I'm not even willing to hazard a reasoned guess until I see the specific clause. Edited February 6, 2017 by Eleran Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Musicman1084 Posted February 6, 2017 Share Posted February 6, 2017 (edited) 58 minutes ago, garfield said: I don't think this is right. While the ED would have failed in honoring the restriction the donor proscribed, I don't think he would be "on the hook" for any money if the MM stiffed them. It's not as if the donor gets his money back. Rather, it's chalked up as a mark against the ED for not finding the appropriate recipient but, if the corps is successful in recouping the money from the MM, they have the opportunity to apply it to another MM who can live up to the donor's restrictions. Is it not a legal requirement to honor donor restrictions, whether temporary (fulfilling event or time passage) or permanent? I was under the impression that improper application of the funds would mean a requirement to return them to the donor as it violated the restrictions in place. Nonprofits aren't my area of expertise, but that was my interpretation based on my exposure. Of course, as N.E. Brigade mentioned, we don't even know if that's the case, but it is something I had been thinking about. Edited February 6, 2017 by Musicman1084 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liahona Posted February 6, 2017 Share Posted February 6, 2017 4 hours ago, garfield said: If, as you say, this is actually a tin-foil raiding conspiracy using the MM's as pawns, it's quite amazing that we haven't heard some similar planted "Me,too!" comments from ex-Cadets members now accepting contracts from BAC. Maybe we won't. Yours is a sad perception of the leaders of the activity; I don't think a single one of them would use their kids as pawns to punish the leadership of another corps that out-foxed them. Maybe I'm naive. BS to bolded above. 1. Crown unfairly rekoked granted scholarships from previous seasons. 2. Crown and Others Boycotted Boston's Early July show. Scheduling conflict is an out and out BOLD LIE. Although this assertion was only adjunctively highlighted by a few posters. 3. Everything else SPIN Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RogerF Posted February 6, 2017 Share Posted February 6, 2017 This thread is dumb. People want to start drama and nonsense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts