NY Court of Appeals rules in favor of BMW Oracle
- Thread starter valenciasailing
- Start date
phomchick
Super Anarchist
Last edited by a moderator:
doghouse
Super Anarchist
Word.
Since CNEV has failed to show that at the time it
submitted its Notice of Challenge it was a "[c]lub fulfilling all
the conditions required by" the Deed of Gift, it does not qualify
as the Challenger of Record for the 33rd America's Cup
competition and Supreme Court was correct in declaring GGYC to be
the valid Challenger of Record.
It has been posited that the right to act as trustee of
the America's Cup should be decided on the water and not in a
courtroom. We wholeheartedly agree. It falls now to SNG and
GGYC to work together to maintain this noble sailing tradition as
"a perpetual Challenge Cup for friendly competition between
foreign countries" (Deed of Gift, October 24, 1887, ¶ 3).
LOL....They slapped BO in the ruling.
So does this mean Cahn's dates are now valid?!?
submitted its Notice of Challenge it was a "[c]lub fulfilling all
the conditions required by" the Deed of Gift, it does not qualify
as the Challenger of Record for the 33rd America's Cup
competition and Supreme Court was correct in declaring GGYC to be
the valid Challenger of Record.
It has been posited that the right to act as trustee of
the America's Cup should be decided on the water and not in a
courtroom. We wholeheartedly agree. It falls now to SNG and
GGYC to work together to maintain this noble sailing tradition as
"a perpetual Challenge Cup for friendly competition between
foreign countries" (Deed of Gift, October 24, 1887, ¶ 3).
LOL....They slapped BO in the ruling.
So does this mean Cahn's dates are now valid?!?
Last edited by a moderator:
PeterHuston
Super Anarchist
- 5,928
- 130
who will be Erne$to's third best lawyer?
PeterHuston
Super Anarchist
- 5,928
- 130
When will ACM start giving refunds to the Challengers who paid the entry fee?
Does Valencia still pony up the cash for the "pre-regattas"?
Does Valencia still pony up the cash for the "pre-regattas"?
WetHog
Super Anarchist
Ok now what? Hopefully Uncle Larry and EB will take the time to settle their differences and do whats right for the Cup and all those that love it. I'm still hopefull. 
WetHogh34r:
WetHog
h34r: learningcurve
Anarchist
- 874
- 0
If I read the doc right, no orders or rememdies other than GGYC is now CoR.
Right?
So it is up to SNG and GGYC to negotiate MC event or hammer out plans for DoG match?
Right?
So it is up to SNG and GGYC to negotiate MC event or hammer out plans for DoG match?
phomchick
Super Anarchist
First, the title of this thread should be:
NY Court of Appeals rules in favor of GGYC
Second, SNG and GGYC can agree to have the DoG match this year. September would be nice. That would still potentially allow a MC event race in 2011.
Last edited by a moderator:
WetHog
Super Anarchist
Regardless of which side won the court ruling, is this it as far as court bullshitting goes? Or is one side or the other gonna find a new legal avenue? I sure hope not.
Oh and I have zero time or patience to read the actual ruling itself. Can someone post the cliff's notes version in this thread? Sure GGYC won, but maybe a little more detail than that.
WetHogh34r:
Oh and I have zero time or patience to read the actual ruling itself. Can someone post the cliff's notes version in this thread? Sure GGYC won, but maybe a little more detail than that.
WetHog
h34r: 
Not reallyRegardless of which side won the court ruling, is this it as far as court bullshitting goes? Or is one side or the other gonna find a new legal avenue? I sure hope not.
Oh and I have zero time or patience to read the actual ruling itself. Can someone post the cliff's notes version in this thread? Sure GGYC won, but maybe a little more detail than that.
WetHog
"We have read the DoG, 'having' means the yacht club must already have had an 'annual' regatta before he can be a challenger of record, CEV does not comply, GGYC is the legitimate challenger, now go figure the rest out on the water, bye"
M - pretty short ruling
learningcurve
Anarchist
- 874
- 0
More importantly, what does this do for SAYC's challenge?
More delay?
I say we sue.
:angry:
More delay?
I say we sue.
:angry:
Try it. You will find it surprisingly simple.Regardless of which side won the court ruling, is this it as far as court bullshitting goes? Or is one side or the other gonna find a new legal avenue? I sure hope not.
Oh and I have zero time or patience to read the actual ruling itself. Can someone post the cliff's notes version in this thread? Sure GGYC won, but maybe a little more detail than that.
WetHog
1 ) CNEV was not eligible to be CoR based on the obvious tense of the the particple 'having' in context (and by linking paragraphs 4 and 10 in the Deed as Maureen M did) and
2 ) GGYC, being the next in line Challenge filed, is declared the Challenger. Cahn was right.
They ruled both key points, unanimously. It is a slam dunk!
Last edited by a moderator:
phomchick
Super Anarchist
There are no details. The Court of Appeals said that the Supreme Court was correct and the Appeals Division was not. "Having for its annual regatta" is not ambiguous and CNEV is not a qualified challenger because they had not held a regatta on the sea or arm of the sea before having their challenge accepted by SNG.
They said nothing about dates or tolling of orders going forward. It is up to SNG and GGYC to work that out on their own.
They said nothing about dates or tolling of orders going forward. It is up to SNG and GGYC to work that out on their own.
