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.
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.
Author