(02-14-2022 02:50 PM)gdunn Wrote: (02-14-2022 02:41 PM)Twon Wrote: Your reasoning and logic is severely flawed.
Let me explain this where you might understand this contractual bylaw situation.
If I wanted to exit my mortgage early. All of the initial breaching action either legal or intentional remains with me. The Bank will not act before.
I either could sell the house to another party there by another bank paying off the existing mortgage or I could stop paying on the mortgage and then and only then would the bank take action and begin repossession.
It is the responsibility of the breaching party (SB3) to take action not the contractual bylaw
following party (CUSA).
Your logic is flawed, goes on to give a logic that is flawed even worse.
The fact is this. There's a contract. States must give a 14 month notice of departure right? Guess what you don't have that in a mortgage. You're not done until you pay it off, so back off the mortgage talk.
This is more like an ongoing services contract. You can end it any time you want but you must give notice unless you terminate early then you negotiate the terms at that point.
The issue at hand and you keep glossing over this because, well I don't know. Bylaws state that there will be a financial/monetary penalty if you leave early. Problem is there is not a penalty described. Because there was mention of the penalty lawyers have looked at this and I'm willing to bet dollars to donuts that the best way to do this is to make an offer. Offer made. The office never communicated back. Until they issued a press release. Not back to the schools, a vague press release.
This will end up being determined by either a judge or arbitration panel. It's not like we're not trying follow the contract, we are, but when the other party is not communicating you do what you have to do. CUSA felt that issuing the schedules would end the conversation, but in fact it started a bigger conversation.
We're not paying a mortgage, we're rendering a service. CUSA is not going to "repo" the schools, they're going to look for financial damages which they have refused to give. When this goes before someone for judgement, CUSA will have to prove damages in the amount they think they're owed and will have to prove why that is. The SBC will show that in December and other letters sent to CUSA they offered to end the contract by offering up x number of dollars and no communication came back from CUSA.
You keep glossing over that the bylaws say that everyone agrees that they will accept an injunction to keep them from leaving early.
You think the only form of damages is money -- in this case it is not. In fact, it is explicitly not the case.
Your reasoning seems to be 'no monetary damages' == 'no damages'. That is a fatal misunderstanding to your construct. Specific performance is a very real issue for contracts that deal with very unique situations.
CUSA has zero obligation to negotiate. They, per everyone's explicit agreement, can march into a court and get an injunction saying 'not so fast sb3'. Something that many from the sb3 cannot wrap their heads around.
CUSA *may* negotiate an early withdrawal -- but y'all sound absolutely horrified and butthurt that that they dont. Well, hate to tell you, they dont have the obligation to do so.
The next step for theCUSA is march down to the 'agreed to' venue district court, plop down the letter y'all supplied, plop down the contract, and ask for an injunction. Which most likely will be granted on the papers themselves.
The SB3 attorneys can scream to hell and high water how they 'threw out numbers for negotiation', but the simple fact remains that each and every member of the sb3 agreed, in writing, that the CUSA doesnt have to do ****, nor even negotiate with an early leaving member.
But you think its such a miscarriage of justice. The bylaws are simple, they explicitly state the 'if a member tries to leave prior to the June 1 after 14 months' they cannot -- and in fact they agree before the fact that they know that injunctive relief is not just possible, but agree that it is the literally the best remedy for the situation.
But nope, how *dare* the CUSA think otherwise.
Kind of amazing to me.