 |
|
 |
|
 Home Page Richmond to lose... History of Rafting Economic Contributions |
Virginia Commonwealth University Virginia Commonwealth University
(VCU) was not the target of the lawsuit.
The City had denied for years anyone other than RRC was launching rafts
within the JRP; commercial, private, or otherwise.
The City was using the obvious misinformation to leverage against
Richmond Raft Company (RRC) for higher access fees.
A document from the Virginia Department of Game & Inland Fisheries (DGIF)
came available that proved there was at least one other organization launching
rafts from the JRP. The document stated
the organization was charging a “fee” for “commercial” rafting using the
“James River Park”. That
document coincidentally named VCU as that
vendor, unfortunately the document was a fatality report.
VCU got attention solely because of the documentation by a credible
agency. Richmond Raft Company (RRC)
contacted the Outdoor Adventure Program Coordinator with VCU and offered a heads
up years before the lawsuit that the Rafting Lease Agreement did not have
provisions that allowed VCU’s commercial rafting activities in the JRP.
RRC gave VCU ample opportunity to approach the City about those
provisions, apparently VCU choose not to address the issue. RRC also contacted the City
years prior to the lawsuit about VCU’s access and other issues that needed to
be addressed and resolved, the City also choose not to take any action on any of
the issues. The lawsuit outline
shows additional attempts to resolve the issues prior to committing to the
lawsuit. The City had violated the
Rafting Lease Agreement in multiple ways, the lawsuit only addressed the issues
easy to prove, and did not focus on VCU in any way. The judge told the City’s attorney RRC was obviously trying to resolve the issues in a reasonable manner and encouraged the City’s attorney to try to resolve the issues out of court, however the City again choose not to take any action. RRC could not turn back concerning the access issue of VCU, it was the only documented evidence RRC had and as Judge Johnson told the City’s attorney during the trail, both parties in a contract are bound by all of the terms, neither party can pick and choose which terms to adhere to and which to ignore. An application of the judge’s point was RRC could not ignore VCU’s commercial rafting activities and expect the City to adhere to all of their other contractual commitments. Richmond
Raft Co. This page is Copyright & copy; 1999 - 2006, Richmond Raft Company
|