4 ms·

>> privilege we may have membership for which he paid $400k >> such a tilt was ~~corrected~~ completely eliminated, without recourse

• close04 7y ago
  > completely eliminated, without recourse For breaching the contractual agreement, something the court has also observed and ruled on. This man indeed paid for something but then used it in a way that was an abuse from the contractual perspective and (saying this as a regular person) also from a common sense perspective. He showed a lot of bad faith and this undermined his case.
  • ethbro 7y ago
    The lack of notification from AA of purported abuse should have been enough to get the case thrown out. The abuse being serious enough to force AA to revoke the pass... yet not serious enough that they discovered or communicated it before they decided to revoke the pass? I can't square that logic.
• JeremyNT 7y ago
  > membership for which he paid $400k ... from the proceeds from his work as a Bear Sterns stock broker. He was in the right place, at the right time, with the right background, engaging in an industry which provides basically negative value to society. Pardon me if I shed no tears for this guy.
  • ethbro 7y ago
    That seems like a shaky moral foundation. What he did to make a living doesn't seem material, nor does the fact that he was a [shock quotes]Bear Stern's stock broker[/]. Everybody does something, but the US is supposed to be a country ruled by law. American mispriced the offer, and several people (including Mark Cuban) bought it, signed a contract, and took them at their word. Then they changed their mind after 15 years.