News Reedy Creek Improvement District and the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District

[lazyboy97o]

I’m not a lawyer, but based simply on these two parts of the contract, I’d wager no. View attachment 707228View attachment 707229

“Closed for Maintenance”

 

[Chi84]

Thanks—this is helpful!

You’re welcome. Sometimes the law is silly; other times it just looks silly

 

[Tha Realest]

Now we know the RCID lawyers proofed those jacked up Disney 100 banners

 

[wdwmagic]

Royal Lives Clause: is your trust running out of time?

In older trusts, the “Royal Lives Clause” was a common way of ensuring that a trust could continue for as long as legally possible.

www.birketts.co.uk

Thanks for posting! very interesting.

 

[Squishy]

Why'd they write England though? Do they have the Disneyland sign guy now typing legal documents?

 

[LittleBuford]

Okay, but is there another "King Charles III" who has reigned over England or any of the realms?

To be clear: I am on Disney’s side, as should be apparent from my previous posts in this thread. I was simply wondering out loud whether such a technical error—and it is an error—could work against the agreement in the event of a legal challenge.

 

[Figgy1]

 

[Disney Glimpses]

Some FL Republicans are not happy:

 

[UNCgolf]

Source: https://www.wftv.com/news/local/pow...XFYXTOFKKQMLXY/?taid=642483accb00fe0001d94b76

Never in a million years did I think the Rule Against Perpetuities would be invoked on a Disney message board.

 

[lentesta]

As I said, it’s clear who is meant, but the reference to him is nonetheless factually incorrect. I’d like to think such technicalities matter much less than intent, but I’m trying to think as a nitpicking lawyer might.

Two safeguards:

1) The venue for disputes is Orange County, using judges not juries. A judge is unlikely to rule that the language is sufficiently unclear as to what is meant. The plain reading signals its intent.

2) The agreement has a "next most reasonable, legal interpretation" clause that allows a section to adapt automatically if any part of it becomes invalid, for that part.

In that case, the next most reasonable legal interpretation is still Charles III.

 

[Fido Chuckwagon]

From the article:

Among other things, the agreement spells out that the district is barred from using the Disney name without the corporation’s approval or “fanciful characters such as Mickey Mouse.”​

​

That declaration is valid until “21 years after the death of the last survivor of the descendants of King Charles III, king of England,” according to the document.​

Is this intended as trolling? Doesn’t such obvious mockery (I assume that’s what it is) weaken Disney’s case if the agreement is challenged in court?

Rule against perpetuities - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[Fido Chuckwagon]

This is probably a stupid question, but could the board just retaliate by closing the roads, since that is still apparently their responsibility?

That didn’t work out so well for Chris Christie and staff.

 

[LittleBuford]

Two safeguards:

1) The venue for disputes is Orange County, using judges not juries. A judge is unlikely to rule that the language is sufficiently unclear as to what is meant. The plain reading signals its intent.

2) The agreement has a "next most reasonable, legal interpretation" clause that allows a section to adapt automatically if any part of it becomes invalid, for that part.

In that case, the next most reasonable legal interpretation is still Charles III.

Thanks for this!

To add to your points, a few minutes of Googling after my last post revealed that misnomers in legal documents generally aren’t an issue when it’s clear who or what is being referred to.

I’m glad I was worrying for nothing and grateful to have learned about the royal lives clause.

 

[lentesta]

Two safeguards:

1) The venue for disputes is Orange County, using judges not juries. A judge is unlikely to rule that the language is sufficiently unclear as to what is meant. The plain reading signals its intent.

2) The agreement has a "next most reasonable, legal interpretation" clause that allows a section to adapt automatically if any part of it becomes invalid, for that part.

In that case, the next most reasonable legal interpretation is still Charles III.

Also, might the choice of "King of England" vs "King of Great Britain" have been a hedge against the possibility of Scottish independence? (The UK would be different after that, but England will always be England.)

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

View attachment 707231

…you win…I got nothing

 

[GrumpyFan]

I was

I was there and can vouch for its openness.

Did you happen to read or hear about this then? Or, are you just now finding out about the details now, like the rest of us?

 

[MrPromey]

It really does now all seem to make sense. Disney must be slightly amazed that it took the new board this long to find this out, especially given it was all public.

I can just imagine Josh getting up in the morning with bedhead and in his boxers sitting down to his laptop with a cup of coffee and thumbing through news articles waiting to see the headlines, checking for emails, making a call to his other phone just to make sure the line is still working and nobody tried to contact him overnight.

... day, after day, after day.

 

[lentesta]

Did you happen to read or hear about this then? Or, are you just now finding out about the details now, like the rest of us?

I'm on a plane rn, then Starcruiser for a couple days. But I think I talked about it here, like "Why are they doing this, now?"

 

[wdwmagic]

I can just imagine Josh getting up in the morning with bedhead and in his boxers sitting down to his laptop with a cup of coffee and thumbing through news articles waiting to see the headlines, checking for emails, making a call to his other phone just to make sure the line is still working and nobody tried to contact him overnight.

... day, after day, after day.

LOL yes agreed. Only one correction, Josh does not have bedhead - he wakes up with the perfect hair each and every day

 

[lentesta]

I'm on a plane rn, then Starcruiser for a couple days. But I think I talked about it here, like "Why are they doing this, now?"

Like, the thing where they granted approval to build more theme parks, water parks, and hotels. Why, if that was already part of the comprehensive plan, did they need to do that on some random winter Tuesday?