Legalize_Medical_Marijuana

*RESPONDENT UNION*’S *POST-TRIAL *MEMORANDUM OF LAW ARGUMENT I. LACHES CANNOT APPLY IN THIS ACTION AGAINST THE UNION II. CLINTON'S DITCH ANALYSIS CONFIRMS JOINT EMPLOYER STATUS III. CHELSEA'S DUTY OF INQUIRY, THRICE RECOGNIZED BY THIS COURT, REASONABLY PROTECTS NECESSARY MARKET EXPECTATIONS ON AGENCY Second, this allocation works eminent goodsense in any market, especially the New York City hospitality service industry. Participants in the New York City hotel market guide themselves in planning and action by the known rules of practice of that industry. A new entrant if allowed to act in secret ignorance or disregard of these rules would therefore steal an unlawful advantage over all other participants and competitors. Accordingly, the Property Advisory - Longstreet - 36 Convent rule requires that entrant to learn the industry's rules and directly publish any dissent to the other market participants or be bound by the rules of engagement honored by everyone else. A contrary holding invites deceit and chaos. The absurdity of turning the Hotel Industry upside-down because of Chelsea's willful claimed ignorance grates particularly hard given how light the burden of inquiry was on Chelsea. Chelsea knew Interstate had agreements with and obligations to the Union, referenced in the Hotel Management Agreement. Chelsea knew about the Industry Wide Agreement; Lam must have considered it when deciding whether to purchase a unionized hotel in 1998 and inputting together his business plan. Chelsea knew that the Union was the labor organization which represented hotel workers; Lam had met with Ward in 1998 and was reminded of the Union by Interstate in 2003. Finally, Lam knew how to get in touch with the Union -- he had done it before. Moreover, if Chelsea had any doubts, it could have easily contacted the Hotel Association. Chelsea, however, did not do any of these things. It claims to have consciously avoided learning what the role and authority of management companies were or the nature of their obligations under the IWA. It is respectfully submitted that this Court must not reward a party such as Chelsea for willfully disregarding the rules of practice of an industry it entered and from which it obtained substantial profit, certainly not at the past and future expense of all other participants. Finally, while the Union maintains that Mr. Romney's and Interstate's discussions with Mr. Ward created no red flags amounting to fraud given industry practice, the timing of these discussions renders them irrelevant on the issue of apparent authorityin any event. Chelsea's obligation to honor card check neutrality arose when it engaged Interstate, a party bound to such terms, to operate the Hotel as its agent starting in December 2003 or January 2004 the latest. Mr. Romney firmly placed his discussion with Mr. Ward in late Spring 2004, a date consistent with both Mr. Lam's and Mr. Ward's accounts. Interstate's discussions with Mr. Ward likewise commenced after January 2004 (See also Exhibit 84). Thus, the flags, if any and whatever their hue, arose only after Chelsea's obligation already existed. Doubts arising after the obligation coalesces do not destroy the obligation or require furtherinquiry. _See, 36 Convent Avenue, supra at _*5 (union entitled to rely on signature of company officer notwithstanding lack of actual authority under company bylaws where disclosure occurred after signature). Therefore, whether or not the Union reasonably responded to arguable doubts raised after January 2004 raises no questions relevant to Chelsea's obligations under apparent authority in this case. CONCLUSION Of Counsel: