BaltACD Did we ever have Sioux sue Soo?
Did we ever have Sioux sue Soo?
Back on topic, all of this happened before the activist investors and the return of Hunter. If this is the flavor of mischief the old gaurd was allowing then no wonder they are gone.
Editor Emeritus, This Week at Amtrak
I think so...was just curious about which is more correct. After all, we don't speak of verbal hygiene, so the two words aren't interchangable in every context.
Ulrich Murphy Siding The article says the railroad's clain is based on an "oral agreement" with the state. Aren't those the kind of agreements that aren't worth the paper they're written on? Oral or verbal? Which is correct?
Murphy Siding The article says the railroad's clain is based on an "oral agreement" with the state. Aren't those the kind of agreements that aren't worth the paper they're written on?
The article says the railroad's clain is based on an "oral agreement" with the state. Aren't those the kind of agreements that aren't worth the paper they're written on?
Oral or verbal? Which is correct?
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
schlimm greyhounds This discussion of Sioux City Sue is sexist and concerns a sexist song that is exploitive of women. It has nothing to do with the original post. And Sioux City is in Iowa, not Wisconsin! So there! This whole thread should be removed immediately, if not sooner. The whole thread or just the 4 off-topic posts prior to yours?
greyhounds This discussion of Sioux City Sue is sexist and concerns a sexist song that is exploitive of women. It has nothing to do with the original post. And Sioux City is in Iowa, not Wisconsin! So there! This whole thread should be removed immediately, if not sooner.
This discussion of Sioux City Sue is sexist and concerns a sexist song that is exploitive of women. It has nothing to do with the original post. And Sioux City is in Iowa, not Wisconsin! So there!
This whole thread should be removed immediately, if not sooner.
The whole thread or just the 4 off-topic posts prior to yours?
May Bing Crosby and Gene Autry rest in their graves.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
54light15 What about Sioux City Sue who's hair is red and her eyes are blue?
What about Sioux City Sue who's hair is red and her eyes are blue?
Johnny
LensCapOn (Would CP use the old corporate structure of the SOO LINE for this?)
(Would CP use the old corporate structure of the SOO LINE for this?)
If CP sues anyone it should be former Gov. Jim Doyle, for coming up with the @#! plan in the first place.
This project was never true "high speed rail", and after the Madison station got moved from the airport to downtown that claim became laughable!
mudchicken PUSHBACK....? The bigger reality check issue will now be that railroads most likely will require reimbursement for all the pie-in-the-sky nonsense that the "transportation" planners and DOTs dump on them constantly in the name of mass transit, most of which never happens or would ever be likely out here in the real world. Bad precident. (this has been brewing awhile) Being a good public citizen has its limits when the dim-bulb politicians and transit bubbas go a little too far w/ OPM and waste the railroad's time.
The bigger reality check issue will now be that railroads most likely will require reimbursement for all the pie-in-the-sky nonsense that the "transportation" planners and DOTs dump on them constantly in the name of mass transit, most of which never happens or would ever be likely out here in the real world.
Bad precident. (this has been brewing awhile)
Being a good public citizen has its limits when the dim-bulb politicians and transit bubbas go a little too far w/ OPM and waste the railroad's time.
A better approach is requiring an escrow or deposit account (sometimes known as "financial security" in land development circles) to be funded in advance. The concept can be stated briefly as: "Show up and bring money !" Then, the money is withdrawn at the railroad's order (only), and subject to replenishment as needed, etc. That way, the fun-and-games are at the expense of the state, and last only as long as the money does.
There are several possible legal theories that CP could use. The best is sometimes called "quasi-contract", or "detrimental reliance". It's typically for a case when the aggrieved party claims to have believed what the other party told it, then acted on that statement justifiably and in good faith, etc., and changed position / lost money (typically) as a result. The measure of damages is usually the amount of the actual out-of-pocket loss.
There's apparently not any express writtten contract, but there might be an express oral ("parol") contract, depending on who said what to whom and when, and the strength of the evidence to that effect, etc.
The "unjust enrichment" theory won't work - nobody made any money out of the deal or the breach.
The lack of funding is a non sequitur - lots of people owe money that they can't pay. The state should have thought of that before breaking the deal.
I don't see a "taking of property claim", even under an "impairment of the value of a contract" theory, although it might be possible under the local law there.
Negligence is also not applicable - what clear duty did the state have that it breached ? Perhaps to negotiate in good faith, but . . .
I'd love to see this turned into a fraud or deceit claim, but the change in personnel and administrations make it unlikely to point to the same person(s) or the same official posts at both critical times of the transaction (the beginning, and the end).
Legitimately, governments can't contract away their basic sovereign powers of making and enforcing laws - at least not most of the time, anyway - because they have to be able to respond to changing times and circumstances. Being aware of the existence and extent of this limitation is critically important to anyone dealing with a governmental entity - you fail to take it into account at your peril.
However, it's also true that a legitimate routine contract is binding, and just as enforceable and unavoidable as in the private sector, which is what I think we're dealing with here. The government may still have the power to back out of the deal - but that power doesn't come free, it has a price - which is the damages due to the other party for the cancellation of the contract (out-of-pocket expenses, lost profits, etc.).
Prediction: The railroads won't get much, but Talgo will - though perhaps as a "back-room deal" that we'll never learn the $ details of.
- Paul North.
PUSHBACK....?
The moral of this story is never trust the government to deal fairly. If they want you to do something get it in writing first. You would think CPR would know that no good deed goes unpunished.
Mac
http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/local/govt-and-politics/article_3333bcff-f224-5ccb-b675-fd4a12d26997.html#.VIcTqZ_vrxU.twitter
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.