[ad_1]
Former President Donald Trump, who entered the White House with a reputation for litigiousness, has shown no sign of letting go now that he is on the other side of his presidential experience. On Monday, one of Trumps companies went to court to force New York City to rescind its termination of a 2012 agreement for the company to operate and manage a range of driving, clubhouse and other facilities that associated with golf at Ferry Point in the Bronx.
The Department of Parks and the city are free to make a formidable business decision. Governments make horrible business decisions all the time. They are government.
Unfortunately for Trump, this is likely to be a short -term legal venture; the city can probably get this case finished before it starts. After all, the Trumps company admitted in the petition it submitted to the court that the contract it signed with the Department of Parks and Recreation could be terminated by the city at will although the Trumps company was quick to point out the fine print, where even one the termination at will must not be arbitrary or capricious.
Trumps fans show on television The Apprentice, along with everyone who has a job in America, recognizing the words at will. Under New York law, an at-will employee may be fired for compelling reasons, a bad cause or no cause, provided the dismissal was not for an illegal reason, such as unlawful discrimination.
Related
Trumps lawyers argue that New York City Mayor Bill de Blasios ’reason for canceling the golf course contract was caused by more of a political than good business reasons. In fact, it is undisputed that de Blasio was not fond of Trump and mentioned his role in the Capitol breach on Jan. 6 at the end of his Bronx golf concession.
Shortly after the riot, de Blasio said the city would cut all contracts with the Trump Organization, allegedly having the right to terminate a contract with any company engaged in criminal activity. “Inciting an uprising against the U.S. government clearly constitutes criminal activity,” he told MSNBC at the time.
Related
Resentment at this policy, in the words of Trumps lawyers, led to the termination of the contract, which they said was not enough reason enough for the Parks Department to terminate the license. Their petition asserted, in Trumpian fashion, that the company built the course on one of the best public golf courses in the United States. It still starts by referring to the fun review the facility received when it first opened in 2015, citing none other than golf legend Jack Nicklaus personal compliments.
The Trumps company went on to say that even the park commissioner acknowledged that it complied with the contractual maintenance requirements of a first class, tournament quality daily golf fee that appears to suggest not the city will end the deal as long as Golfweekwas satisfied.
A city spokesman, Nick Paolucci, said in a statement published in The Washington Post Monday that the city thought its actions were justified. We will vigorously defend the cities ’decision to terminate the contract, he said.
In fact, it doesn’t matter how good the golf course is. Trump’s petition admitted it was an adjustment of the will. The Department of Parks and the city are free to make a formidable business decision. Governments make horrible business decisions all the time. These are governments, after all. It is not designed to make good business decisions.
Did de Blasios like Trump making the decision? All but certain. Is this a bad reason to terminate the license? Sure. But that probably doesn’t matter. The essence of a contract at will is that it is terminable even for bad, bad advice reasons.
In fact, by pointing out what a bad economic decision it was to cancel this deal, Trump’s lawyers are making their own argument with the cities: It ended for a specific reason even though it was bad. If that is the case, then it is a proper termination at will.
Related
In fact, the burden for proof in cases like this is so heavy that Trump is likely to lose, even if he passes the motion stage. His company did not file a typical lawsuit seeking damages but one asking the court to force the city to undo a decision made by the city. A court would give the city the substantial benefit of the doubt in this type of litigation.
Of course, Trump as Trump, a dismissal here is probably not the end; he really likes courtroom dramas. His lawyers signaled in their filing that the desired language, if applicable here, entitles Trump to $ 30 million in damages. Which means essentially they say to the city, in one way or another, See you in court.
[ad_2]
picture credit