Palmetto Proving Grounds

I'm sure you're correct. The University made a mistake in offering them. I'm sure that most of the lifetime members have reached an accomodation with the University. With respect to those who haven't I don't fault them for attempting to resolve their differences with the University in court.

He's right, it says specifically that the "tickets may be assigned to a designated heir".

It seems that the original purchaser got some extra perks, and now this guy wants to be able to get the same perks. This Hope guy or whatever his name is needs to shut up, take his tickets and sell them. He will probably try to sell them at above face value and get arrested for scalping, thus looking like a complete tool for suing the University to begin with. That would be poetic justice.

Bump. Let's keep this bitch alive

So you're standing by all these gems, offered before I posted the actual contract language (and you got real quiet)?

From this thread:

-I would like to think that the University's word is forever. {Cue rainbows and unicorns.}

-It's not a question of loyalty. it's a question of adherence to the terms of a written contract.

- Bom274 said...

Don't know the particulars of the situation you're talking about.

They should be ashamed.

-Funny that you saw fit to write both of these sentences in the same post.*

*This one's especially rich, with you chastising another member for drawing a conclusion without knowing all the particulars, something you obviously, and erroneously, have done yourself.

-The contract allows for the original purchaser to designate an heir. {It allows a one-time assignment of tickets only.}

-The contract allowed the father to designate a successor to his rights under the contract. {False, see above.}

-I disagree that Hyman had to breach these contracts. There are very few lifetime members. He could have found a way to honor the written contracts or otherwise satisfy them.

-You're missing the point. The original purchaser of the membership had the right to transfer the membership. {Again, false.}

-The contract in question does allow a transfer of benefits. {No, again, tickets only.}

From the other thread (Lil Jerry's):

-He's the designee of the purchaser of a lifetime membership in the Gamecock Club who takes issue with the University failing to keep its promises.

-The contract allows the original purchaser to designate a successor.

-Hyman screwed this up by deciding to renege on contracts into which the University entered. I suppose he thought those he was shafting would pull a Kevin Bacon.

-I don't have a copy. I've seen several. I've seen the language pertinent to the issue of transferral. It couldn't be clearer in allowing the transfer. {Here you get all pissy/bossy, even thought you're dead wrong.}

Hope, whose story started these threads, is suing over parking and ticket fees, neither of which is included in the express terms of the Lifetime contract. Yesterday, a judge bounced another one of these suits. I'll tell you what's probably going to happen: these folks are going to settle, or they're going to lose outright. Either way, it's not Hyman's fault or any untoward/unethical conduct on his part that caused this, as you clearly indicated above, and despite no factual basis for your assertions.

A man, and especially one who professes to be an alumnus and a fan of the University, should be able to admit that he was wrong. We can all see what you have chosen to do.

Wow...

LOL. What a tool.