Cam Newton...steals

[2006Coltsbestever]

I just got done reading all of the Posts, what an entertaining Thread

[DougDew]

He didn't rob a liquor store.

Yeah, I don't care about banners. I think someone made the point that Cam stole the property of another person, just because he was mad. I think most situations require the punishment to be more than just returning the item. Heck, I think even an 8 year old that stole a candy bar is usually required to at least say he's sorry.

Then again, some kids don't feel like they have to. I've had little kids take things from me before right out in the open, and have even experienced them just flat out telling me to give them what I have. Walk right up to me and say "gimme some of that". They act like they are entitled to it just because they want it and I have it. I can't relate to that very well.

But I don't care about banners, Cam, or the kind of person he seems to be, so I don't even know why I'm commenting.

[SilentHill]

It is if he wanted to pursue it. Hoaxer he settled out of court. It wasn't paper either.

There is plenty justification. He took the man's property and destroyed it. To some people, $500 is quite a bit of money. It is in fact grand theft in the third degree.

So regardless of what your opinion is about it, it's the law. Sorry, those silly laws get in the way of people doing what they want.

 

Do you still not care that he was hanging the sign against the rules of the stadium and that any rules violations would result in the confiscation of the offending sign? He literally has no grounds to sue anybody.

[SilentHill]

No it wasnt. Attaching may be, but he said he was given permission.

 

Unless it was written permission it doesn't matter.

[Narcosys]

Unless it was written permission it doesn't matter.

 

You do know that verbal agreements can be and are legally binding?

[SilentHill]

You do know that verbal agreements can be and are legally binding?

 

It's hearsay at best, It would be far fetched to stand up in court.

[OffensivelyPC]

It's hearsay at best, It would be far fetched to stand up in court.

To be fair, one could easily make a good case for a verbal agreement here because both parties acted in reliance on said verbal agreement.  In essence, the agreed, say, over the phone that he could bring in his sign despite it being against the rules.  He brought it in reliance on that promise and, whether intentional or not, the stadium never enforced its right to remove the sign (and no, Cam wouldn't count lol).

[SilentHill]

To be fair, one could easily make a good case for a verbal agreement here because both parties acted in reliance on said verbal agreement.  In essence, the agreed, say, over the phone that he could bring in his sign despite it being against the rules.  He brought it in reliance on that promise and, whether intentional or not, the stadium never enforced its right to remove the sign (and no, Cam wouldn't count lol).

 

Cam represents the Panthers, why couldn't he count?

 

Regardless the dollar value of the poster would put this case in small claims, and you are going to have a really hard time trying to successfully subpoena anyone to provide you with proof there was an agreement on being able to affix the sign to the wall of the stadium. Without the witness it would be hearsay and most likely inadmissible.

 

A good lawyer like the one Cam Newton could afford would have this thrown out in minutes.

[OffensivelyPC]

Cam represents the Panthers, why couldn't he count?

 

Regardless the dollar value of the poster would put this case in small claims, and you are going to have a really hard time trying to successfully subpoena anyone to provide you with proof there was an agreement on being able to affix the sign to the wall of the stadium. Without the witness it would be hearsay and most likely inadmissible.

 

A good lawyer like the one Cam Newton could afford would have this thrown out in minutes.

Cam represents the Panthers, but in his capacity as a football player.  So even if he said he was exercising the right of the Panthers to tear down the sign, he would have done so outside the scope of his employment.  Even if it was in his job description duties, it wouldn't be to destroy personal belongings, it's to confiscate them and return them (or simply have the person return said belongings to their car and then return to the stadium).  It's why the Panthers paid for the sign.  

 

I don't disagree with you that a good lawyer (even an average lawyer) could easily get the implicit verbal agreement thrown out, because, practically speaking, what you said in your 2nd paragraph is true, plus the attorney fees would dwarf the amount of damages anyway.  A judge isn't going to award attorney fees that are 10 times (and that's being conservative), they seldom do anyway.  

 

There's nothing a lawyer could do to get the Panthers/Cam from having to pay for or recreate the sign though.  Had they refused to make the man whole, they would have undoubtedly lost in court.  But they took care of that, so really, there's nothing to go to any court about at this time.

[SilentHill]

Cam represents the Panthers, but in his capacity as a football player.  So even if he said he was exercising the right of the Panthers to tear down the sign, he would have done so outside the scope of his employment.  Even if it was in his job description duties, it wouldn't be to destroy personal belongings, it's to confiscate them and return them (or simply have the person return said belongings to their car and then return to the stadium).  It's why the Panthers paid for the sign.  

 

I don't disagree with you that a good lawyer (even an average lawyer) could easily get the implicit verbal agreement thrown out, because, practically speaking, what you said in your 2nd paragraph is true, plus the attorney fees would dwarf the amount of damages anyway.  A judge isn't going to award attorney fees that are 10 times (and that's being conservative), they seldom do anyway.  

 

There's nothing a lawyer could do to get the Panthers/Cam from having to pay for or recreate the sign though.  Had they refused to make the man whole, they would have undoubtedly lost in court.  But they took care of that, so really, there's nothing to go to any court about at this time.

 

just for curiosity, are you sure that confiscated signs must be returned? If so then this makes sense, but if they don't have to return them, then I guess it doesn't matter if it was destroyed.

 

I mean if I was the panthers I would pay for the sign anyway regardless of fault, just because of the PR nightmare that ensued.

[OffensivelyPC]

just for curiosity, are you sure that confiscated signs must be returned? If so then this makes sense, but if they don't have to return them, then I guess it doesn't matter if it was destroyed.

I mean if I was the panthers I would pay for the sign anyway regardless of fault, just because of the PR nightmare that ensued.

I guess, now that you ask, I'm not sure. I just assume that since they have a leave it at the door policy (ie, no admittance unless you put it in your car), that it's approved if allowed into the stadium. In that event, the decision to reverse it's position means they can't just come and take it and destroy it without giving the spectator a chance. It would be odd if there wasn't some sort of property claims table/office/policy for a sports stadium.