- 14 -
B. The Lawsuit
We have examined the agreement and the complaint, and, on
their faces, the agreement is valid and the complaint properly
drawn. J.P. Carolan III, is an attorney who represented RTA in
the lawsuit. At trial, he opined that EDS would not be
successful in terminating the agreement in its entirety and that
RTA “had a claim”. He described RTA’s initial efforts to
prosecute the lawsuit, including RTA’s success on the merits in
December 1990 in asking for an injunction to prevent EDS from
selling the TTS equipment to other investors. He stated that,
even after RTA failed to post the bond necessary to have the
injunction issued, RTA’s activity on the lawsuit (primarily
discovery) continued for a few months, until the lawsuit became
dormant for economic reasons in early 1991. Walter W. Manley II,
one of the shareholders, a director of RTA, an attorney, and a
professor of business administration at Florida State University,
College of Business, testified credibly that there was merit to
the breach of contract claim that gave rise to the lawsuit.
Messrs. Carolan's and Manley’s testimony convinces us that the
breach of contract claim in the lawsuit had merit. The second
count of the lawsuit related to the marketing rights obtained by
RTA from EDS. We presume that, in some part, the injunctive
relief that RTA successfully argued for related to that count,
and that success convinces us that the marketing rights claim of
the lawsuit had merit. Petitioners have presented no evidence
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011