Could you post us to this story? The one that has all the info about what the club said. All I see is one truncated line from them.
I’m not aware of any more info as to what the club said, nor have I made any claims as to what the club said beyond what I quoted in my OP.
Oh no, it hasn’t. The camp has needed to find alternate activities. That’s damages caused by the breach of contract.
I run a website that sells memberships to a technical organization. If I got an email from PayPal I’d sure know it (I mean, after I recovered from fainting about all that money. ) The computer won’t know, but the person who gets the email would. More likely, the person who authorized 60 kids to come to the pool would also.
I didn’t see anything that said that the manager, shocked at 60 kids showed up unannounced, turned them away either.
I’d bet they were thrilled at getting all that money given that giving up a pool might be high on the list for someone hurting financially. Thrilled until they got complaints about letting those people in.
Sure Philly is Philly, but there won’t be a new club. 10 acres and the facilities are not going to drop out of the sky in this day and age.
Looking at the web site, and their need to SELL instead of donate time to underprivileged kids tells me this one is already on shaky ground.
Not everyone is going to leave, and others will join up to replace them. It is not apartheid South Africa there. They will do fine at getting past it in my scenario (and others).
And you know what, if the camp ended up wit the whole thing and couldn’t support it, I am sure they would be thrilled to sell the 10 acres for something else and use the money for their programs.
It will all be fine, it will not go out of business. If that was the case, then the club would never negotiate their own closing.
And, I might add, that we don’t know the current ownership structure at all, which is why I avoided equity issues in my settlement prediction. But depending on how that is set up, back to ivn’s question, I think there could be some risk of piercing of the corporate shield too, and then management (or members if that is how it is owned) could be at personal risk for liability, all the more reason to settle quickly and quietly.
God I love threads like this. People asserting with absolute full confidence as though its not a matter for debate what the club knew, would have known, should have known, must have known.
People also asserting with full confidence the motivations of others (as in: we know for a fact that the white kids left the pool because they were scared of cooties from the black kids)
Ya know something? Life seldom works this way.
Perhaps the pool was exited because becuase of the colour of the day camp kids, perhaps the (relatively few?) white kids felt intimidated? Perhaps there was no mass exodus at all. Perhaps there was another largish group of white kids coinicdentally had to leave just as the black kids were arriving?
If so should it have been explained better? Sure! Doesn’t mean it was though. Or maybe it was and the reporter had a different agenda so didn’t “report” it?
By the same token, you don’t know what negotiations (if any) went on between the daycamp and the club. You don’t know if the tickets were booked via web, in person, in neogitations or otherwise.
You don’t know who was notified of what when. But there are still a great many people that are willing to jump to the conclusion of vile racism based on what one of the white kids in the pool (maybe) said and the use of the word “complexion” by the club manager. A word that can be perfectly fitting by the way if the club wasn’t expecting 60 boisterous kids (of any colour) at once.
To all those screaming racism, please calm down just a little and see if you can gather more facts before you throw out incontrovertible statements of “it must have been racism - there is NO other possible explanation”
Amen and hallelujah. Quoted so DtC reads it twice.
Just a reminder.
Restricted language in the Pit - The BBQ Pit - Straight Dope Message Board
No warning issued.
Gfactor
Pit Moderator
Sorry - I thought I had replied to this late last night. I would be lying if I said that there wasn’t booze involved in that false memory…
Anyway, yes, there is no exclusive method of measuring contractual damages. It’s been a while since contract class, and it isn’t something I do on a day to day basis, though I did pretty recently end up doing a lot of work on it, until the judge bifurcated damages, that is…
I’d imagine at this time that benefit of the bargain would be significantly more expensive, given the lateness of the claim. However, it seems that someone has offered a pool for use. Assuming it is an equal value pool, and there are not extra costs (such as increased transportation etc) then $1,900 is the contractual damages here (again, presuming there is no valid liquidated damages clause to deal with etc).
I’d hope you’d see the specific performance aspect of it was more a poetic justice idea than an actual suggestion. Obviously there is no way this is going to get SP, not least because by the time a court hears it the summer would be over. Moreover, it wouldn’t be fair to the kids necessarily to expose them to these kind of people, presuming the motivation is as alleged. It was more the idea that forcing the club members into integrating their facilities would have a certain delicious pleasure for me.
Cite for any of this? You keep claiming it was for a booking, but it wasn’t. Given the prices on their website, the camp got a MEMBERSHIP for each kid, which means you can come and go at ANY TIME.
My local community pool also sells MEMBERSHIPS. I bought MEMBERSHIPS for almost 30 for kids at my church AT ONE SINGLE TIME with a SINGLE CREDIT CARD PAYMENT. However, the kids went in SMALL GROUPS to the pool. We NEVER TOOK THEM IN A LARGE GROUP ALL AT ONCE.
Of course, we HAD READ THE RULES, and realized that KIDS MUST BE ACCOMPANIED BY ADULTS and that ONE OR TWO ADULTS WITH 30 KIDS was a rather UNREASONABLE BURDEN for the pool, hence the smaller groups.
There is a fundamental assumption with all clubs that every member will not make use of the facilities at the same time. This true whether the club is a Fitness Club, Country Club or Sam’s Club. There is absolutely no reason to believe that by accepting 60 memberships, the club knew that all 60 would be making use of the facilities at one time.
Anyway, keep feeling the manufactured outrage. Maybe sometime you’ll find a better purpose in life.
Where are you getting the suggestion that someone said it’s a conspiracy of 60+? Exactly three campers/counsellors were quoted in the linked article.
Heck, who in this day and age is stupid enough to think that they could change complexion because someone with a different skin color happens to be in the water?
If it was just about the numbers, why would the club cancel their memberships?
cause its probably safer legally (and more fair) to tell em to leave and REFUND the money than to tell them to leave and KEEP their money.
Also, if there were some rules (or common sense) the group didnt follow, then you really don’t want them as members in the first place.
There is a vast difference between “is” and “should be”
No offense, because I do this all the time, but you might want to keep reading the thread. This idea gets fleshed out.
While RR can annoy the *** out of me (and many others, it would seem) on a regular basis, I think his construction here was on target: “There are many people under the (mis-)apprehension that discrimination in a private club is illegal – or if it is not under present law, it should be.” That strikes me as a valid observation, properly expressed in the sentence you quoted.
It’s a valid observation, but it desperately needs to be coupled with an understanding of what “private” means in this context. While IANAL, it seemed pretty unlikely to me, just from the OP, that this club would turn out to qualify as private.
But you couldn’t possibly have had a more nuanced understanding of public accommodation law than that captain of nuance, Rand Rover.
That’s right buddy, bear down, keep those heels dug in, let the righteous anger well up within you.
If anyone reading this has not experienced a DtC thread before, this is how they go. DtC is clearly not a person to be reasoned with. He’s just here to shoehorn his liberal douche views into every possible situation, damn the torpedoes and full speed ahead.