Moderators: GirlOnTheTrain, mtuandrew, Tadman
JimBoylan wrote:It would be a very interesting precedent if a judge were to rule, and be sustained on appeal, that a contract may be broken just by paying the unspecified damages. It would be even more interesting if the judge were to craft his opinion so that it only applied to this narrow case. Recent precedent involving Guilford roads, the Downeasters, and the Montrealer, had judges ruling in Amtrak's favor, although the decisions were delayed by many appeals. Amtrak's right to run the Illinois trains over lines that joined Amtrak started with the 1971 law that established the National Railroad Passenger Corp. Some of the technicalities expired in 1996.Thanks for the info. I recall a dispute with Guilford regarding the Downeaster, but in my recollection the dispute was over 59 vs. 79 mph running on the route. Was there an earlier dispute with Guilford regarding running the trains at all?
jck wrote:Sorry...assuming Amtrak loses the suit in equity. That's the only situation that will result in their having to cut trains. And I reissue my question.amusing erudition wrote: Assuming they lose [...] does anyone want to speculate which two runs to/from St. Louis will get cut?Assuming who loses?
Amtrak could still "win" the contract dispute, but not be able to run the trains, if a judge or other arbitor determines that CN is required to pay damages to Amtrak. Would a judge actually force CN to run the trains on its own tracks?
JimBoylan wrote:It would be a very interesting precedent if a judge were to rule, and be sustained on appeal, that a contract may be broken just by paying the unspecified damages.That's not really interesting at all, and they would almost certainly be sustained on appeal if it were the judgment. Legal damages are the default remedy for contracts. You almost always get only money for someone breaching a contract with you. The courts are very hesitant to enjoin compliance with a contract without a very good reason. One of the reasons is if you would not be able to get what you had contracted for using the money they would pay you.
JimBoylan wrote:Even without an alleged invalid contract, Amtrak may still have the right by law (instead of contract) to run the trains on these lines. If so, a judge might order the trains run while the amount Amtrak has to pay is litigated.If there is a specific statute, then I could see the judging ordering CN to run the trains, but as amusing erudition has outlined, monetary damages, not requiring performance, are the usual remedy for breach of contract.