I think this is very amusing, and I hope RUMP wins.
Yeah, this is a “thing” for some companies to do. When Sohio was bought out by BP Oil, they forbid employees from salvaging anything with the beloved “Sohio” logo on it. I knew one employee at the station down the street and he collected Sohio memorabilia and it was killing him to destroy the signs.
I really don’t understand deliberately destroying symbols of your company’s legacy. As a collector of many things, much of my life is spent researching old companies and seeking out their products and ephemera.
Dennis
Modern corporations are sharks – sleek, hungry, and always moving forward. Nostalgia is almost as disrespected as charity.
Besides, leaving behind ephemera is tantamount to not destroying evidence. “Researchers” have a way of figuring out where the bodies are buried. Can’t have that, can we?
I don’t. I think the Trump organization is in the right and should win the lawsuit. They signed a contract to have the signs destroyed not resold. The company then chose to resell a sign anyway. Palmieri was wrong to resell the sign and RUMP, while it did not violate the contract, didn’t have legal ownership of the sign and isn’t entitled to make money by selling it.
Agreed, however Palmieri pocketed an extra $250 that he wouldn’t otherwise have gotten. Surely breaking a contract to get more money is the highest calling recognized by Trump and his supporters.
Trump v Rump…
Bricker?
Once you throw something away, it shouldn’t be your property anymore, and you should have no control over what happens to it. Otherwise people can forbid people from taking food that has been put in the garbage, which is horrible.
The sign not being destroyed doesn’t matter in the slightest, and the only reason to even be going after this is to be petty and vindictive and to bolster other claims. It’s not like the continued existence of the sign in any way harms the company.
That’s a bit difference from, say, finding a bank account number or something. Then I could see arguing a problem. Though I would also say you should destroy sensitive stuff like that yourself, as people in general are just bad at keeping secrets.
Until someone eats food out of a dumpster and comes down with a serious case of food poisoning, then tries to sue the store/restaurant for medical bills, even though one could argue it’s their own damn fault for eating three-day-old chicken out of a dumpster in August. Better for the store to flat-out forbid dumpster diving because defending against even bullshit legal claims chews up time and money, which hits customers in the form of increased prices.
If RUMP signed a contract stating they would take the sign down, destroy, and landfill it, they were legally bound do to exactly that. By taking the sign and trying to sell it on eBay, they are guilty of breach of contract.
That shit’s illegal and could possibly prevent them from landing other similar jobs once word gets out.
RUMP didn’t sign any contracts. They bought the sign from the contractor/subcontractor who did sign a contract to remove and destroy it. RUMP didn’t actually do anything wrong, the contractor did.
Normally, yes. But this was not the case here. The contract specified the sign was supposed to be destroyed not merely thrown away.
I noted above that RUMP didn’t break any contract. But that doesn’t put them in the clear. If you go to a used car dealer and buy a car in good faith but it later turns out the car was stolen, you don’t get to keep the car even though you weren’t involved in or even aware of the crime. The car still belongs to its previous legal owner even though you also paid for it.
The same principle applies here. Palmieri didn’t have a legal right to sell the sign so RUMP’s purchase of it is invalid.
Rereading the OP I see I missed one party that was involved. Palmieri Electrical Contractors subcontracted the job to another company, Eastern Sign Tech. It was Eastern not Palmieri which sold the sign. It’s not clear what the terms of the contract were between Palmieri and Eastern.
So we can’t know if Palmieri violated its contract with Trump by not contracting with Eastern properly and telling them to destroy the sign or if Palmieri told Eastern to destroy the sign but Eastern chose not to do so. If it’s the latter case, then Eastern and not Palmieri was the the company that broke its contract.
What if the contractor was unhappy with Trump’s performance and decided not to fulfill their end? How do we know there weren’t vehicles parked in the way of the sign and so they had to come back a second time?
Even so, once the first party is contractually obligated to destroy the property it doesn’t matter how many hands it passes through. The only option open to everyone is to sue the person/company they received the property from. The sign is still legally required to be destroyed per the first contract.
If a car is stolen, it doesn’t matter how many owners bought it in good faith, once it is identified as a stolen vehicle it still reverts to the person it was stolen from. We have all seen news articles where a stolen car was returned to it’s original owner after 30 or 40 years.
I agree. But if Palmieri had contracted with Eastern to destroy the sign then it will probably be able to avoid any penalty for contract violation.
There’s essentially two paths being traced here. One is the ownership; that clearly goes back to the Trump company and they’re suing RUMP to get their sign back. The other is who is responsible for the fact the sign isn’t destroyed; that issue has nothing to do with RUMP because they never had a contract with the Trump company. The Trump company will be suing either Palmieri or Eastern over that.
Right, but Azeotrope was stating RUMP broke its contract, which is not true.
I’m saying RUMP didn’t do anything illegal when they bought the sign. But yes, now that it’s been established that the entity they bought it from had no right to sell it, they should return it (and get their $250 back), the frothing of anti-Trumpers not withstanding.
Probably not. But it is possible they acted illegally.
If they bought the sign without knowing the back story, they didn’t break any laws. But if they knew at the time they bought it that Eastern didn’t have the legal right to sell it, then they become complicit in the illegal sale. According to the Trump lawsuit (which may or may not be accurate) this is the case.
The Song of the Fences.
‘Thief Town’ a searing sociopolitical leftist musical from 1953, combining Brecht and Bernstein in four hours of Method singing and accusatory interaction with the bourgeois audience.
Maybe, maybe not. Technically what they did was to receive stolen property. Bricker and our other legal types will start trotting out terms like mens rea meaning whether they knew the seller didn’t have the right or authority to sell the sign. If they did know, they are complicit in the crime as Little Nemo states.
If they didn’t know, then the lawyers start playing in the gray area of whether they should have known or reasonably suspected something was up.
If Palmieri did not properly write the subcontract with Eastern, then it would appear that the above assertion in the complaint doesn’t really hold up.
In fact, I’m not sure the assertion sands up to scrutiny anyway. Under what doctrine of due diligence is a participant to an ad hoc sale of material responsible to know the seller’s authority to offer the material?
N.B. the above is a serious question, and regardless of the answer, is not intended as an argument that the signage need not be returned.