The Dolphins Make Me Cry.com - Forums

http://deadspin.com/5984732/jeffrey-loria-told-jose-reyes-to-get-a-nice-house-in-miami-four-days-before-trading-him-and-decimating-the-marlins-roster (http://deadspin.com/5984732/jeffrey-loria-told-jose-reyes-to-get-a-nice-house-in-miami-four-days-before-trading-him-and-decimating-the-marlins-roster)

Let's just pin this thread as more will come up. The link says it all. Loria is a Bond villain.

This is pretty horribly scummy.

Here's my thinking: is there an action for promissory estoppel here in the event that Reyes *does* buy the house?

I can only imagine what Dolphins fans would have to suffer through if this money grubbing POS owned them.  Seriously, he makes Steven Ross look like Art Rooney.

I love every second of national press this guy gets for being a complete waste of human tissue.  His arrogant money-grubbing attitude is vomit-inducing.  I would love nothing more than to wait in line to punch this guy in his fat face.

How MLB hasn't stepped in to remove him yet is beyond me.

Make that part 3978898.  Just heard on the radio this morning the Marlins are suing one of their fans.

HEre's the story.  The Marlins are a complete joke.

http://www.cbssports.com/mlb/blog/eye-on-baseball/21912900/marlins-threaten-to-sue-season-ticket-holders-over-seat-complaint

I'm kind of on the fence about it. Those extra couple of inches mean nothing and don't obstruct your view, get over it. I heard reports that the Marlins offered them other seats but they weren't in the first row. I don't know how they couldn't find some first row seating since I'm sure they have no fans anyway. But suing your fans? I know they signed a contract, but suing? I dunno. The fans seem to be complaining over nothing.

End of the day, if a fan chooses not to renew their tickets FOR ANY REASON, that's their prerogative.

But they already signed their multi-year contract. Do they have a way out of it?

^^^ Not if they signed a contract which it says they did.

Personally both sides are being petty and stupid. I think the fan is looking for an excuse out of an agreement he signed. That padding complaint is stupid. As for the Marlins, if they have a complaint work to correct it as best you can. It isn't like you have people beating down your doors to come to the games.

If you sign a contract, the Marlins don't have the right to change the condition of the seats AFTER the signing without offering reasonable alternatives.

They get you locked in to a multi-year deal for big money and front row seats and then they put a huge sign in front of your seats and they become partially obstructed, its the classic bait-and-switch.  How could anyone think that was OK.

Bingo.  Because the Marlins changed the condition of the seats, that right there should void the contract.   You can't alter your end of a deal and then expect the other party to keep theirs.

Did you even look at the photos? This huge sign equates to about two inches of padding on top of the wall in front of them. That really is not changing the condition of seats. They are concerned because they cannot see ground hit foul balls. It sounds like they are more concerned about getting a souveneir rather than safety. How is a ground ball going to endanger them?

No.  The test is not "changed the conditions" of the seats.  The defendant is going to have to prove that the change materially changed the conditions of the seats to get any relief.  And then so most likely only a refund on the diminished value.    

You can't void a contract for every minor little detail.  Specifically, if the detail is not explicitly stated in the contract.  (And I really doubt the contract said anything that would bar this.)

Courts are very reluctant to void contracts.

From looking at the photos, for a person sitting in the front row, it appears that the obstructed view consists of a few inches of grass outside the field of play.  I doubt that "change" rises to enough to even get a lower price.  

Phish, in my example, the "huge sign" was hypothetical.

Point is, SOMETHING changed that led them to not have liked the seats, and they can claim that they wouldn't have selected that seat had they been like that when they originally purchased. That's all they need.

Besides, isn't it better to move their seat to avoid all the bad press they are getting?

Yes something changed, the expectations of the Marlins winning games. I don't really agree much with either side in this argument. #1 I think the fans want out of spending the money. Their claims are outrageous looking at the photos. #2 I think the Marlins are being unreasonable given the lack of fans they have. Provide these people another seat, but hold them to their promise of buying tickets.

That is not all they need.  Otherwise folks would be voiding contracts left and right because of trivial crap.


This is true.  And probably the reason of why the defendants went to the press.  

What is going on here is the equivilant of you buy non-refundable tickets from Southwest (mightaswell drag Pappy into the thread) to visit your sister and then you have a fight with your sister and decided you don't want to visit her. 

You read on the internet that Southwest has changed their pretzel vendor. 

You then claim that the reason you selected Southwest is b/c you loved their pretzels but you can't stand the new brand and demand Southwest either refund your money or provide you with your beloved pretzels. 

^^ that's a terrible analogy.

(a) a Southwest ticket is a one-time purchase, not recurring.
(b) its a couple hundred bucks, not $25,000
(c) Pretzels are provided as a courtesy, not the primary reason one flies
(d) The person didn't have the choice of pretzels or peanuts, and chose pretzels based on their vendor of record.

The person chose THOSE SEATS based on the experience of inspecting them prior to purchase.  At the time, they met their satisfaction.  Now they do not, so they should not be FORCED to pay for something that doesn't meet their satisfaction.

Sure you can say that the underlying cause is likely that the Marlins are horrible, but if there is a legitimate reason, no matter how trivial YOU may deem it, that these seats are no longer up to the standard of the customers' expectation, they should not be forced to pay for it.  If the customer was offered a different seat, would the accept it?  That nullifies the "the team sucks" argument.

(although, you COULD even argue that selling off all the players after locking people into long-term contracts is also changing the product).

A better analogy would be if you sign up for cell phone service after looking for the carrier with the best signal in your neighborhood.  You find Verizon has a tower close by and you sign up for a 3 year contract with Verizon so you have the best signal at home.  Then 4 months later, Verizon takes down their cell tower and you have no service at home.

Or maybe this one - You rent a car from a busy airport and you pay for a luxury vehicle.  You have a confirmed reservation for a BMW 5-series.  But when you get there after flying for 8 hours, they give you the keys to a Dodge Neon and say "have a nice day."  Would you just say "ho-hum I guess I get what they give me" and walk out, or would you fight for what you reserved originally?

No you can't.  And that is the real reason why these folks want out.


did you see the photos?  you can still see the whole field of play, a small portion outside the foul line is no longer visible while seated. 

You analogy stinks.  More like you get verizon and you want a full refund because of a 3 minute outage. 

^ its not a 3 minute outage.  Its not a temporary problem. Its not going to go away.  It doesn't matter how minute YOU think the problem is.  Your judgment of the photos is immaterial.  Its all up to the opinion of the person paying the money.

We all love assumptions - apparently these people have been fighting this since the wall was changed in the middle of LAST season.  Before they traded away all their players.  You cannot assume that.  Did you READ The article?

If they wanted out completely, why wouldn't they just ask for out?  If it wasn't REALLY about the seats, not about the team, then why would they accept a seat move as resolution?

Yankees announcer Lou Piniella apologized after saying this week: “I don’t want to use the word ‘raped’ but [Toronto] basically took a lot of talent from the Miami Marlins.

Read more here: http://miamiherald.typepad.com/sports-buzz/2013/03/media-notes-heat-surpassing-dolphins-with-record-ratings-local-radio-marlins-related-apology.html#storylink=cpy



I wouldn't use the word raped either because Jeffery Loria getting in bed with the Blue Jays front office was entirely consensual.