Legalize Medical Marijuana
- Submitted by: kessylin
- Views: 999
- Category: English
- Date Submitted: 04/05/2010 01:45 PM
- Pages: 3
- Report this Essay
*RESPONDENT UNION*’S
*POST-TRIAL *MEMORANDUM OF LAW
ARGUMENT
I.
LACHES CANNOT APPLY IN
THIS ACTION AGAINST THE UNION
II.
CLINTON'S DITCH ANALYSIS
CONFIRMS JOINT EMPLOYER STATUS
III.
CHELSEA'S DUTY OF
INQUIRY, THRICE RECOGNIZED BY THIS COURT,
REASONABLY PROTECTS NECESSARY MARKET EXPECTATIONS ON AGENCY
Second, this allocation works eminent goodsense in any market, especially the New York City hospitality service industry. Participants in the New York City hotel market guide themselves in planning and action by the known rules of practice of that industry. A new entrant if allowed to act in secret ignorance or disregard of these rules would therefore steal an unlawful advantage over all other participants and competitors. Accordingly, the Property Advisory - Longstreet - 36 Convent rule requires that entrant to learn the industry's rules and directly publish any dissent to the other market participants or be bound by the rules of engagement honored by everyone else. A contrary holding invites deceit and chaos.
The absurdity of turning the Hotel Industry upside-down because of Chelsea's willful claimed ignorance grates particularly hard given how light the burden of inquiry was on Chelsea. Chelsea knew Interstate had agreements with and obligations to the Union, referenced in the Hotel Management Agreement. Chelsea knew about the Industry Wide Agreement; Lam must have considered it when deciding whether to purchase a unionized hotel in 1998 and inputting together his business plan. Chelsea knew that the Union was the labor organization which represented hotel workers; Lam had met with Ward in 1998 and was reminded of the Union by Interstate in 2003. Finally, Lam knew how to get in touch with the Union -- he had done it before. Moreover, if Chelsea had any doubts, it could have easily contacted the Hotel Association. Chelsea, however, did not do any of these things. It claims to have consciously avoided learning what...
*POST-TRIAL *MEMORANDUM OF LAW
ARGUMENT
I.
LACHES CANNOT APPLY IN
THIS ACTION AGAINST THE UNION
II.
CLINTON'S DITCH ANALYSIS
CONFIRMS JOINT EMPLOYER STATUS
III.
CHELSEA'S DUTY OF
INQUIRY, THRICE RECOGNIZED BY THIS COURT,
REASONABLY PROTECTS NECESSARY MARKET EXPECTATIONS ON AGENCY
Second, this allocation works eminent goodsense in any market, especially the New York City hospitality service industry. Participants in the New York City hotel market guide themselves in planning and action by the known rules of practice of that industry. A new entrant if allowed to act in secret ignorance or disregard of these rules would therefore steal an unlawful advantage over all other participants and competitors. Accordingly, the Property Advisory - Longstreet - 36 Convent rule requires that entrant to learn the industry's rules and directly publish any dissent to the other market participants or be bound by the rules of engagement honored by everyone else. A contrary holding invites deceit and chaos.
The absurdity of turning the Hotel Industry upside-down because of Chelsea's willful claimed ignorance grates particularly hard given how light the burden of inquiry was on Chelsea. Chelsea knew Interstate had agreements with and obligations to the Union, referenced in the Hotel Management Agreement. Chelsea knew about the Industry Wide Agreement; Lam must have considered it when deciding whether to purchase a unionized hotel in 1998 and inputting together his business plan. Chelsea knew that the Union was the labor organization which represented hotel workers; Lam had met with Ward in 1998 and was reminded of the Union by Interstate in 2003. Finally, Lam knew how to get in touch with the Union -- he had done it before. Moreover, if Chelsea had any doubts, it could have easily contacted the Hotel Association. Chelsea, however, did not do any of these things. It claims to have consciously avoided learning what...