Friday, November 14, 2003
The Clerk, guest posting at crescat, supports the legality of the VFW's exclusion of Veterans for Peace from a Veteran's Day Parade, relying on Hurley.
As a bisexual (aardvarks and humans), I think Hurley is a good case, correctly decided, on freedom of association grounds. This case, though, may be factually distinguishable. "We'll refund their $10", parade sponsors said.
I wasn't there and may not have the facts right, but what I think I'm hearing is a breach of contract claim. The damages are not rescision, return of the $10,
but expectation damages, whatever a jury finds it was worth to the veterans for Peace to march in the parade, which is intangible and could be millions or zero or $1, depending on the jury. I don't know why blogger doesn't have spellcheck, rescision looks iffy, rescission?
As a bisexual (aardvarks and humans), I think Hurley is a good case, correctly decided, on freedom of association grounds. This case, though, may be factually distinguishable. "We'll refund their $10", parade sponsors said.
I wasn't there and may not have the facts right, but what I think I'm hearing is a breach of contract claim. The damages are not rescision, return of the $10,
but expectation damages, whatever a jury finds it was worth to the veterans for Peace to march in the parade, which is intangible and could be millions or zero or $1, depending on the jury. I don't know why blogger doesn't have spellcheck, rescision looks iffy, rescission?
Comments:
Post a Comment
