[Dion]

Originally Posted by valo403

Do oyu have evidence of this double-dipping? Unless this was heard by a judge who didn't go to law school that isn't happening. A basic tenet of contract law is that the result places the parties into the same position they would have been absent breach. This suit would have sought enforcement of the contract, which would be a forced purchase.

Here's something that might interest you.

Richard Glaub submitted this question through The Washington Post's Facebook fan page: I would like to ask, from a legal standpoint, how the Redskins can double-dip? How can they sue people, and win judgments, while at the same time, sell their tickets?

James Grimaldi: Donovan said that it would be absurd to freeze the seats while the litigation is pending.

Germantown, Md.: My question is this. If something signs for 5 years at the club level. Then they default on their contract. The Skins rightfully go after them for that money or whatever. Meanwhile, the Skins sell those seats again under a new contract. Right? Does this mean they "could" make more out of it? Not saying they do. Just saying they could, right?

James Grimaldi: The teams believes it is well within its rights to resell the tickets.

Arlington Va.: Did you get to talk to lawyers about the legality regarding having people pay for tickets that are then resold to others? I know it is a penalty for reneging on the contract, but essentially it is the same thing. I would be interested to know if there are legal issues involved here. It's a similar issue with an apartment lease, and I don't believe you can charge the previous tenant for the lost apartment charges if someone else signs a new lease.

James Grimaldi: The attorney quoted in the story -- Alan Silverberg -- argued just what you are saying, ie, that holding the seats, or the suites, is akin to a landlord-tenant case, regardless of what the contract says. If a tenant fails to pay rent and is evicted, the landlord must try to rent the property to someone else before going after the tenant for the full damages. Silverberg argued that on behalf of his client in pretrial discussions and the Redskins conceded the point. But Donovan said the concession was not and admission -- he said it was prudent rather than spend money to litigate the matter.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...090202622.html