Tweet
Dude, you have this entirely wrong. The case was brought to the circuit court for $500,000, and it was dismissed because The Chicago Coliseum Club could not prove their loss based on an event that depends on how many people buy tickets, the weather, etc.
Yes, every civil case must show damages if you can't there is no suit.
THE APPELLATE COURT REVERSED AND REMANDED THE DISMISSAL OF THE CIRCUIT COURT'S CASE! MEANING THE REVERSE AND REMAND WAS IN FAVOR OF THE CHICAGO COLISEUM CLUB, NOT DEMPSEY. IT STATED CLEARLY THAT THE FINDING SHOULD HAVE BEEN FOR THE PLAINTIFF BECAUSE THEY WERE ENTITLED NOMINAL DAMAGES, WHICH MEANS THE CASE WAS IMPROPERLY DISMISSED.
So was there a retrial?
Clearly both courts believed that Dempsey breached the contract. The circuit court dismissed the case, which was for $500,000, because it believed the amount could not be accurately calculated, while the appellate court said that this decision was the WRONG decision because the court should have not dismissed the case, but awarded the nominal damages.
You ducked this and you are trying like hell for some kind of technicality that doesn't exist. Did the appellate court say that Dempsey CLEARLY breached the contract? Just give a simple yes or no!!!
I already said that the judge said that, how many times do I have to repeat myself? - In the end there was a call for a retrial, was there a retrial?. I didn't duck the question I answered it three different times. You got a thing about ducking.
Man, you really have this backwards. DEMPSEY DID NOT APPEAL. THE CHICAGO COLISEUM CLUB IS THE APPELLANT. When Dempsey appealed the injunction, his case was thrown out because the injunction had expired after September 1926 and he appealed it after that time.
It was already established that Dempsey breached the contract. The promoter appealed because they wanted to be awarded for some damages that they were denied, such as saying that a net profit of $1,600,000 was lost. They were also told that they couldn't recover the money that was paid in order to procure the injunction. They brought the suit to the circuit court for an amount of $500,000 and after the court looked at the damages, which clearly they wouldn't have even bothered to do if there was no breach of contract, the suit was improperly dismissed. They were denied these amounts in the circuit court because they couldn't prove that the fight would bring in a total of $3,000,000, which was their main contention, and couldn't prove that they should be given money for expenses that happened after the contract was already breached.
So everything you are saying about not getting a fair trial is actually being stated in support of the Chicago Coliseum Club, being that they are the one who appealed. The appellate court reversed the dismissal and said:
1. Dempsey clearly breached the contract.
2. The judgement should have been for the Chicago Coliseum Club because they were clearly owed money, even if not the significant amount they asked for.
3. The case was reversed and remanded so that the Chicago Coliseum Club could present MORE evidence regarding (nominal) damages.
And did they? Was there ever a judgment that awarded them damages?
Now that you went on the rant about Dempsey being in the right because the case was reversed and remanded, I wonder if you will be consistent and say The Chicago Coliseum Club was in the right because actually the case was reversed and remanded specifically FOR THE PROMOTER TO RECEIVE THE DAMAGES THAT THEY WERE OWED DUE TO THE BREACH OF CONTRACT. (Including the $10 that they gave for consideration. Just thought that was a funny bit to add some levity to this conversation. The case brief actually states that!
).
No I told you the whole thing was a gangster scam being run out of Chicago. If they really had a case they would have gone for a federal injunction and stopped the Phily fight, but they didn't, why? You keep ducking that question. They couldn't get a hearing outside oft heir own corrupt courts.
DEMPSEY DID NOT APPEAL. THE CHICAGO COLISEUM CLUB APPEALED. SO YOU ARE ACTUALLY ARGUING FOR THE CHICAGO COLISEUM CLUB!
So should we go around saying that they weren't owed money, when the court specifically said that they were, by law, owed money due to the breach of contract?
If so why didn't they collect?
YOU ARE BLATANTLY LYING TO YOURSELF AND TRYING TO GET OUT OF THIS ON A TECHNICALITY. THE SUIT BROUGHT TO THE APPEALS COURT WAS BROUGHT BY THE PROMOTER. THE JUDGEMENT THAT WASN'T LEFT STANDING WAS THE DISMISSAL OF THE $500,000 SUIT IN DEMPSEY'S FAVOR. THEY STATED THAT DEMPSEY CLEARLY BREACHED THE CONTRACT, AS WAS ALSO STATED IN THE INDIANA COURT WHEN THEY GOT THE INJUNCTION, AND THAT HE WAS LIABLE FOR AT LEAST NOMINAL DAMAGES.
You have to admit that you had this completely backwards, and you can't backtrack now, buddy. The reversal that you have been championing was actually not in Dempsey's favor, but in the promoter's favor. And again, they clearly state, in plain English, that he breached the contract and, more importantly and specifically to their purpose of the appeal, he was liable for damages and that the circuit court erred in the dismissal.
Yes I admit I had the appeal backwards but the ending result was still the same, a call for retrial; as soon as it reversed the judgment was gone. They had to do it over, did they? That remains the same. If they were so in the right where, when was the retrial?
Come on, Dempsey-Louis,
No need to back track, it still called for a retrial, that looks not to have happened. - It looks like Dempsey did get off scott free; did he pay anyone anything?
If you look at the above, you have to admit that you are being biased here. I don't really mean to bust your chops (well I do mean it I guess, but not in a malicious way), but you have to admit that you are really distorting things any way you can to not see this clearly.
Maybe, but I still can't find where Dempsey was found guilty of anything that had standing; in the end did he pay damages?
After these conversations, we will never want to talk about breach of contracts in Chicago ever again
Man, what a mess. So what happened with the alleged drugging of Demp?
Yes, every civil case must show damages if you can't there is no suit.
THE APPELLATE COURT REVERSED AND REMANDED THE DISMISSAL OF THE CIRCUIT COURT'S CASE! MEANING THE REVERSE AND REMAND WAS IN FAVOR OF THE CHICAGO COLISEUM CLUB, NOT DEMPSEY. IT STATED CLEARLY THAT THE FINDING SHOULD HAVE BEEN FOR THE PLAINTIFF BECAUSE THEY WERE ENTITLED NOMINAL DAMAGES, WHICH MEANS THE CASE WAS IMPROPERLY DISMISSED.
So was there a retrial?
Clearly both courts believed that Dempsey breached the contract. The circuit court dismissed the case, which was for $500,000, because it believed the amount could not be accurately calculated, while the appellate court said that this decision was the WRONG decision because the court should have not dismissed the case, but awarded the nominal damages.
You ducked this and you are trying like hell for some kind of technicality that doesn't exist. Did the appellate court say that Dempsey CLEARLY breached the contract? Just give a simple yes or no!!!
I already said that the judge said that, how many times do I have to repeat myself? - In the end there was a call for a retrial, was there a retrial?. I didn't duck the question I answered it three different times. You got a thing about ducking.
Man, you really have this backwards. DEMPSEY DID NOT APPEAL. THE CHICAGO COLISEUM CLUB IS THE APPELLANT. When Dempsey appealed the injunction, his case was thrown out because the injunction had expired after September 1926 and he appealed it after that time.
It was already established that Dempsey breached the contract. The promoter appealed because they wanted to be awarded for some damages that they were denied, such as saying that a net profit of $1,600,000 was lost. They were also told that they couldn't recover the money that was paid in order to procure the injunction. They brought the suit to the circuit court for an amount of $500,000 and after the court looked at the damages, which clearly they wouldn't have even bothered to do if there was no breach of contract, the suit was improperly dismissed. They were denied these amounts in the circuit court because they couldn't prove that the fight would bring in a total of $3,000,000, which was their main contention, and couldn't prove that they should be given money for expenses that happened after the contract was already breached.
So everything you are saying about not getting a fair trial is actually being stated in support of the Chicago Coliseum Club, being that they are the one who appealed. The appellate court reversed the dismissal and said:
1. Dempsey clearly breached the contract.
2. The judgement should have been for the Chicago Coliseum Club because they were clearly owed money, even if not the significant amount they asked for.
3. The case was reversed and remanded so that the Chicago Coliseum Club could present MORE evidence regarding (nominal) damages.
And did they? Was there ever a judgment that awarded them damages?
Now that you went on the rant about Dempsey being in the right because the case was reversed and remanded, I wonder if you will be consistent and say The Chicago Coliseum Club was in the right because actually the case was reversed and remanded specifically FOR THE PROMOTER TO RECEIVE THE DAMAGES THAT THEY WERE OWED DUE TO THE BREACH OF CONTRACT. (Including the $10 that they gave for consideration. Just thought that was a funny bit to add some levity to this conversation. The case brief actually states that!
). No I told you the whole thing was a gangster scam being run out of Chicago. If they really had a case they would have gone for a federal injunction and stopped the Phily fight, but they didn't, why? You keep ducking that question. They couldn't get a hearing outside oft heir own corrupt courts.
DEMPSEY DID NOT APPEAL. THE CHICAGO COLISEUM CLUB APPEALED. SO YOU ARE ACTUALLY ARGUING FOR THE CHICAGO COLISEUM CLUB!
So should we go around saying that they weren't owed money, when the court specifically said that they were, by law, owed money due to the breach of contract?
If so why didn't they collect?
YOU ARE BLATANTLY LYING TO YOURSELF AND TRYING TO GET OUT OF THIS ON A TECHNICALITY. THE SUIT BROUGHT TO THE APPEALS COURT WAS BROUGHT BY THE PROMOTER. THE JUDGEMENT THAT WASN'T LEFT STANDING WAS THE DISMISSAL OF THE $500,000 SUIT IN DEMPSEY'S FAVOR. THEY STATED THAT DEMPSEY CLEARLY BREACHED THE CONTRACT, AS WAS ALSO STATED IN THE INDIANA COURT WHEN THEY GOT THE INJUNCTION, AND THAT HE WAS LIABLE FOR AT LEAST NOMINAL DAMAGES.
You have to admit that you had this completely backwards, and you can't backtrack now, buddy. The reversal that you have been championing was actually not in Dempsey's favor, but in the promoter's favor. And again, they clearly state, in plain English, that he breached the contract and, more importantly and specifically to their purpose of the appeal, he was liable for damages and that the circuit court erred in the dismissal.
Yes I admit I had the appeal backwards but the ending result was still the same, a call for retrial; as soon as it reversed the judgment was gone. They had to do it over, did they? That remains the same. If they were so in the right where, when was the retrial?
Come on, Dempsey-Louis,
- you went from saying that the injunction was granted by corrupt Chicago judges, but it was actually granted by an Indiana judge.
Still the same local nonsense, to stop the Philly fight they needed a federal injunction. Why didn't they get one, because the federal courts were not corrupted like the local courts. Indiana didn't mean anything, except what happens in Indiana, and that's not even relevant to the argument you made about the fight being in Chicago. Just how hard did they have to look to find a friendly judge? - You claimed the promoters were gangsters whom Dempsey wanted no part of, but that is pure speculation.
Yea right, Chicago in the 20s and early 30s, I'm just speculating. Read a history book. - You claimed Dempsey thought he couldn't trust Fitzsimmons, whom he went out of his way to thank for trying to help him get out of this mess with the Chicago Coliseum Club.
But still wanted to do no business with him, now did he? - You claimed that Dempsey wanted to get away from Chicago, yet the injunction was the only reason that the Tunney fight didn't take place in Chicago.
Why would an Indiana injunction stop a fight in Chicago but not Phily? No logic here. - You then went on and on about Dempsey appealing, when it was in fact the promoter who was appealing, and you claim that the reversal means that Dempsey gets off scot free, and I bet you will backtrack now that it was revealed that the reversal is in favor of the Promoter.
No need to back track, it still called for a retrial, that looks not to have happened. - It looks like Dempsey did get off scott free; did he pay anyone anything?
If you look at the above, you have to admit that you are being biased here. I don't really mean to bust your chops (well I do mean it I guess, but not in a malicious way), but you have to admit that you are really distorting things any way you can to not see this clearly.
Maybe, but I still can't find where Dempsey was found guilty of anything that had standing; in the end did he pay damages?
After these conversations, we will never want to talk about breach of contracts in Chicago ever again
Man, what a mess. So what happened with the alleged drugging of Demp?
In most States (I think all) you must be able to show harm (economic) damages or there is no civil law suit allowed.
That is probably why the first judge dismissed the case; and why the appellate judge said have a retrial and show damages. You said there were three trials, what was the third one? Was that the retrial? Did they ever show harm?
So what this sounds like, the Superior judge dismissed the case because the Chicago Club couldn't show harm/damages; the appellate court then said that Dempsey did breach the contract, so there should be a retrial giving the Chicago Club a second chance to show damages, but for some reason the Chicago Club didn't follow up. Is this correct?
Comment