jck wrote: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?
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.
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.
Thus, I think that this is a reason for Amtrak to get the injunction because damages will not be sufficient since Amtrak has few if any other options to run the service it was about to under the agreement (noting of course that the replacement service would have to run through all the cities that the first service did). Now, CN could be required to pay damages equal to what Amtrak would be making from running the service, but it seems to me that the speculative "profit" would still not be a sufficient remedy.
So, notwithstanding any statutory right Amtrak has to the tracks, I'd say this is a classic case for a judicial order for specific performance. The rights to the tracks are not fungible and so damages may not ever be a sufficient remedy.
Also, I'm not sure what you mean by unspecified damages. They would have to be specified before a suit could even happen. And I can think of several ways that they could angle for damages (the cost of the tracks themselves being the likely ceiling). But I think they would rather have the injunction, and I think they can frame the case in such a way to get it.
-asg