-31--31-
election until the environmental impact report was performed.
Although the terms of the Irwindale MOA required Irwindale to
complete the environmental impact study, the injunction
prohibited the Raiders and Irwindale from continuing in the
implementation of the Irwindale MOA. By the terms of the
Irwindale MOA, third-party obstacles, such as the preliminary
injunction, did not excuse performance; therefore, the Raiders’
obligation to repay the loan was not discharged in 1987.
1988
Respondent argues that, by their statements in pleadings
filed in the lawsuits designed to stop this project, the Raiders
and Irwindale admitted that the Raiders were entitled to retain
the $10 million without obligation. In the amended answer dated
March 21, 1988, the Raiders alleged that the Raiders were
entitled to retain that money whether or not the stadium was
built. Irwindale conceded the right of the Raiders to keep the
$10 million “regardless of what happen[ed]”.
Legislation enacted in September 1988, by its terms,
prohibited the implementation of the Irwindale MOA. Although
negotiations continued after September 1988, those negotiations
were not conducted under the Irwindale MOA. At trial, Birren
admitted that the legislation precluded Irwindale from complying
with the terms of the MOA. General obligation bonds could not be
issued to construct a stadium that Irwindale would then turn over
to any private company, such as the Raiders. The parties to the
Page: Previous 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011