Opinion ID: 1476448
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 11

Heading:  View of the Premises

Text: Although Candlewood attached to its complaint its expert's reports that contain various charts and drawings, Pan American asserted in the Court of Chancery, and urges on this appeal, that this action unquestionably requires that the finder of fact undertake an up close and detailed view of the premises at issue. [39] Pan American did not explain how its expert or factual presentation would be inhibited by the absence of a view of the premises, or how an up close and detailed view would help the Court assess how many hundred acres of forest were taken out of production, or how many hundreds of thousands of square meters of earth were excavated. Pan American also made no effort to explain why video technology and other visual aids would be less informative than an in-person expedition. Despite the lack of a particularized record on these issues, the Court of Chancery appears to have accepted uncritically Pan American's assertion that this factual dispute cannot come to resolution without a view of the premises and, therefore, it will suffer overwhelming hardship if forced to litigate here. [40] Neither Pan American nor the Court cited any case in which forced reliance on video or other visual aids, in lieu of a personal inspection, was found to constitute a hardship. [41] The Court's finding on this factor lacks evidentiary and legal support.