4 ms·
I am not sure why you would say that she has no case. On the one hand, it's a common understanding that businesses can bar anyone from their premises for any re
by BizarroLand 4y ago
I am not sure why you would say that she has no case. On the one hand, it's a common understanding that businesses can bar anyone from their premises for any reason, and that would be the normal interpretation of this issue, but in this circumstance, the lawyer does have a legitimate response in that they have agreed to waive that authority in exchange for the permission to serve alcohol on premises.
On the other hand, they sold her a ticket to a show and then unilaterally voided that ticket without warning based on something that had only the smallest connection to her, which could be considered retaliation against the law firm that is handling the case.
There isn't any doubt about the facts of the case, the only question is how will a judge and jury allocate fault and responsibility.
That's a really good case for any competent lawyer and I'm pretty sure their legal team is not very happy right now.
- gregors 4y agoWhen you say "can bar anyone from their premises for any reason" I don't think you've fully thought that out. Can I ban you from attending based on race? That answer is no, I cannot. Why? Because that is a protected status. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 is a good thing.
- mannerheim 4y agoBanning someone because they're part of a protected class is typically the only exception, and not applicable here.
- mission_failed 4y agoGiven that a small number of companies are concentrating ownership of businesses, there really should be legislation that restricts their ability to 'ban' people. Australia has 2 main supermarket chains, and they also own numerous other stores/brands. If one decided to ban you from every store it makes it very hard to shop for food.
- rootusrootus 4y ago> That's a really good case for any competent lawyer and I'm pretty sure their legal team is not very happy right now. I'm surprised that the policy of banning litigating lawyers ever passed their legal department to begin with. It's just inviting a guaranteed headache without providing any additional legal advantage.
- treis 4y agoJames Dolan, as any Knicks fan will tell you, is a gigantic idiot. He's CEO of his daddy's company and basically sucks at everything he does.