GrumpyFan
Well-Known Member
This is hilarious. They honestly expected Disney just to hand over the keys to the world peacefully in what was essentially a an ugly hostile takeover?
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
News Reedy Creek Improvement District and the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District
- Thread starter castlecake2.0
- Start date
GrumpyFan
Well-Known Member
Not true. They have to pay their lawyers to prepare and go to court to fight this.
I’m more thinking this gives them evidence of possible tangible damages if the board tries to undo the agreements. They would have been arguing possible damages if they sued at the beginning. If the board took action it might give them probable damages to sue to undo the state’s actions.
I understand the state wouldn’t be party to the current pending lawsuit, but I wonder if Disney could use this to sue Florida saying that their actions by replacing the RCID have the possibility to cause major harm to their business practices, and this action would be exhibit #1.
Epcot82Guy
Well-Known Member
While there is precedence, there are also several theories that could be advanced against this. There are a number of general contract law theories that could be invoked. And, they are not normally used. But, it would put a court in the position of having to choose major contracting law public policy arguments vs. the law cited earlier. While we're focused on Disney right here, incentivizing this behavior across the State in other situations could have a major chilling effect. Which gives a court (should it want to) more leeway in what would normally be seen as "interfering".
I personally agree Disney is trying to push this out in hopes Desantis is replaced by a more friendly leader. But, there is a lot of general public policy danger in what they are choosing to do. Knowing this will almost certainly now go to court - I actually think this was a really, really bad act on their part (speaking as a Floridan generally - not a Disney fan.)
I personally agree Disney is trying to push this out in hopes Desantis is replaced by a more friendly leader. But, there is a lot of general public policy danger in what they are choosing to do. Knowing this will almost certainly now go to court - I actually think this was a really, really bad act on their part (speaking as a Floridan generally - not a Disney fan.)
peter11435
Well-Known Member
They have to pay their lawyers with money that belongs to the district. The district gets all of its money through taxes and fees it collects mostly from Disney. Disney would essentially be funding both sides of any legal action. The board is not accountable to Disney or any landowners within the district that fund its operations. There is little to no reason for the board to be averse of litigation aside from outcomes not in their favor.
flynnibus
Premium Member
The district has to pay… not these individuals. And they have no one to face if they drive up costs…. Because they only are accountable to the gov… not their constituents
JoeCamel
Well-Known Member
Like suing your homeowners association, it sucks but has to be done sometimes. I won
Chi84
Premium Member
What general contract law theories are you referring to?
Brian
Well-Known Member
UNCgolf
Well-Known Member
I'm honestly not really seeing much public policy danger here. It's a unique situation that's not really applicable to basically anywhere else. Florida itself has passed laws that are significantly more dangerous from a public policy perspective.
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
What damages or harm? If a court finds the agreements to be null that harm was caused by the previous board and Disney by entering into illegitimate contracts. It had nothing to do with the current form of the District.
peter11435
Well-Known Member
GrumpyFan
Well-Known Member
Not sure really, my first assumption would be the office of the Governor or worse, the taxpayers of the state of Florida.
Vegas Disney Fan
Well-Known Member
DeSantis should have let the legislators backtrack from this when they wanted to a few months ago, he had already gotten his press and the “blame” would have fallen on them… instead he dug in his heals for more exposure and now he’s getting it… I’m guessing this isn’t the exposure he wanted though.
Hopefully other politicians take note, punishing people/companies for daring to oppose you may not work out the way you want it too. Not only has he angered a lot of moderate reps for turning his back on rep values but now he looks incompetent while trying to do it.
Hopefully other politicians take note, punishing people/companies for daring to oppose you may not work out the way you want it too. Not only has he angered a lot of moderate reps for turning his back on rep values but now he looks incompetent while trying to do it.
Brian
Well-Known Member
Neither would be party to a lawsuit over these agreements. The agreements were made between RCID (before it became CFTOD) and Walt Disney Parks and Resorts. Those two entities would be the parties.
Epcot82Guy
Well-Known Member
I haven't dug into the details here so (seeing your occupation as well), I'm talking high level. But, while they normally would never carry weight outside of padding out your arguments in the initial claim/motions/briefs, we are starting to get into bad faith contracting, conflicts of interest, and (remote but possible) even tortious interference (assuming there was anything pending - not likely).
The most likely, rather, is a public policy argument. If there is a change pending of this nature with that level of attempted insulation and removal of power without ability to modify would set that up more than usual. Especially for development, as this could have much wider sweeping implications for other development situations. A court (especially one sympathetic to Desantis) could easily find the chilling effect there grounds on public policy to at least invalidate the term of this contract and inability for the future board to reclaim powers it would rightfully have via the establishment of the district.
Again, not saying these are likely to win. Rather, this is a tough ball (speaking nicely) usage of legal loopholes and capabilities. And, if those cases are decided in favor of "creativity" by big companies with major legal departments, I tend to find that does not benefit society at large very well down the line when that case law becomes precedence. And, while this would normally settle out of court 100% guaranteed, I wonder if this one may go all the way through given the public eye.
Legal nerding over. Please feel free to DM me if you'd like to chat more, without everyone else glazing over.
Epcot82Guy
Well-Known Member
It depends on the case. When I say public policy, I mean the legal theory of interfering with something that would normally be handled between private parties. You are 100% right that there are many laws that are more dangerous. I'm talking solely about the circumstances of a pseudo-public entity intentionally abandoning its authority and rights to a private organization, where there was an arguable (meaning you could make the argument) demonstrable conflict of interest between the parties involved.
A court would never decide whether the terms of the agreement were in the public's interest. Rather, if the circumstances surrounding the execution of the agreement would be significantly suspect enough that the court would need to step in to limit or invalidate the contract as a matter of pubic policy - such that other similar situations would not be incentivized in all circumstances.
They could find either way. They could also do a very narrow opinion saying it's ok in this exact circumstance, but not generally (or vice versa). I'm simply saying the circumstances and involvement of the public agencies like this could open the door - especially for a judge that is sympathetic to it. Rather than it being a clear and decisive win for Disney with no chance of a challenge.
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
How is this creative or novel? What loopholes were used? These types of agreements are specifically authorized by state law.I haven't dug into the details here so (seeing your occupation as well), I'm talking high level. But, while they normally would never carry weight outside of padding out your arguments in the initial claim/motions/briefs, we are starting to get into bad faith contracting, conflicts of interest, and (remote but possible) even tortious interference (assuming there was anything pending - not likely).
The most likely, rather, is a public policy argument. If there is a change pending of this nature with that level of attempted insulation and removal of power without ability to modify would set that up more than usual. Especially for development, as this could have much wider sweeping implications for other development situations. A court (especially one sympathetic to Desantis) could easily find the chilling effect there grounds on public policy to at least invalidate the term of this contract and inability for the future board to reclaim powers it would rightfully have via the establishment of the district.
Again, not saying these are likely to win. Rather, this is a tough ball (speaking nicely) usage of legal loopholes and capabilities. And, if those cases are decided in favor of "creativity" by big companies with major legal departments, I tend to find that does not benefit society at large very well down the line when that case law becomes precedence. And, while this would normally settle out of court 100% guaranteed, I wonder if this one may go all the way through given the public eye.
Legal nerding over. Please feel free to DM me if you'd like to chat more, without everyone else glazing over.