Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3
Results 41 to 43 of 43

Thread: Valanciunas' Buyout To Be Raised To At Least $3M

  1. #41
    Raptors Republic Starter MyMomLovesMe's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Streetsville
    Posts
    489
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    By all means show me what is lacking about it. Don't say you don't know anything about these matters, but than insult me for my opinion. I never spoke as a lawyer, I spoke as human being that can smell a bad contract that is exploitative.

    You think that a 50X buyout of the life term of the contract is fair, I do not.


    international Arbitration is the only way to go in international contract law. Local jurisdictions have very little bite for enforcement. You can look this up, its not hard. The NBA teams and NHL teams could violate the terms of the Eurolegues but they don't. It is generally known in the business as both leagues respecting their territories. There will be legal ramifications if they don't. However, I would imagine... that such agreements are violated everyday with Asian leagues, African leagues... middle-eastern leagues, you only can enforce these laws if you have teeth.


    ...and you did mention Streetsville, and there was no point to it. None. (Other than to make it personal.)

    EDIT: I love a good debate, keep it kosher, and I will trade with you message for message. I have never once used a sentence that has insulted your intelligence, you have used many. Attack my points, not my knowledge, please.
    Last edited by MyMomLovesMe; Sun Jun 5th, 2011 at 08:38 PM.

  2. #42
    Raptors Republic All-Star
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    1,176
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote MyMomLovesMe wrote: View Post
    By all means show me what is lacking about it. Don't say you don't know anything about these matters, but than insult me for my opinion. I never spoke as a lawyer, I spoke as human being that can smell a bad contract that is exploitative.

    You think that a 50X buyout of the life term of the contract is fair, I do not.


    international Arbitration is the only way to go in international contract law. Local jurisdictions have very little bite for enforcement. You can look this up, its not hard. The NBA teams and NHL teams could violate the terms of the Eurolegues but they don't. It is generally known in the business as both leagues respecting their territories. There will be legal ramifications if they don't. However, I would imagine... that such agreements are violated everyday with Asian leagues, African leagues... middle-eastern leagues, you only can enforce these laws if you have teeth.


    ...and you did mention Streetsville, and there was no point to it. None. (Other than to make it personal.)

    EDIT: I love a good debate, keep it kosher, and I will trade with you message for message. I have never once used a sentence that has insulted your intelligence, you have used many. Attack my points, not my knowledge, please.
    Gosh, shall I reply this one last time to try and smooth over your misunderstandings?

    But first, why are you so offended when you even admit yourself you weren't speaking as a lawyer?

    YOU WIN on the exploitation opinion. I don't care enough about that point to argue a second extra second about it. I've said this multiple times already.

    What is lacking about what you said? Go back and read what I wrote regarding your Chinese sweatshop example, the treatment of supposedly "unfair" contracts within the US, and how if this was an American vs American case, the court would award expectation damages and not reliance. It's ALL there. Then Google all the applicable case law and concepts. If you want to argue U.S. law, offer case law that is on point but contradicts, or draw lines to how some other seemingly unrelated concept could apply here (this is how the American legal system works). I'd be more than happy to debate legal arguments and counters in that case. I didn't say anything about your logic or common sense, except the inference that it wasn't used as the basis for U.S. law. I do tell people when their logic stinks, and this clearly wasn't one of those times.

    Yes, I did mention Streetsville. This is a Raptors board. The Raptors are a Canadian team. Had your location been "Philadelphia", I would have assumed you were talking about U.S. law. Is it so wrong for me to see that you are not only a Raptors fan but might live in Canada, then ask you whether you are referring to U.S. law when you say "our contract law"? Is it rare for someone to be surprised that a Canadian might be referring to American law as their own? I didn't go, "AH HA, you're a dumb Streetsville Canadian, I got you now!" I said:

    Are you speaking from some basis of knowledge in U.S. law? Just wondering. Not to be rude or anything, but I'd rather be debating this if you have actual knowledge and not just speculation or out of knowledge re: Canadian law. I do say in advance if I'm fuzzy on something (e.g. I have absolutely no clue about how this would work in Canada), and I'm wondering because you mention "our contract law" but I take it you live in Streetsville, Ontario?
    I even relied on you for confirmation that your Streetsville was the Streetsville I was thinking of. If you are some dual-citizen Canadian/American an outright American, or if it was an American Streetsville and you were indeed referring to the U.S. law when you said "our contract law", what's the big deal?

    And in response to your EDIT, I wasn't trying to say anything about your intelligence and I apologize profusely if it came out that way. I don't consider proper knowledge of American law to be required to be intelligent whether you're Canadian OR American, and most if not almost all Americans apply their own law incorrectly. The only thing I assumed about you was perhaps you were being stubborn in not wanting to admit your assumptions weren't backed by actual U.S. law. I'm a stubborn old mule sometimes when I get caught arguing something I have no knowledge about, so it shouldn't be that offensive if I think you are being like me. That's why I tried so hard to make it clear the parts I was guessing about (by applying what little I knew) as opposed to the parts that I wasn't. It wasn't false modesty -- just me covering my ass in case you came back at me with some vast knowledge of U.S. employment or immigration law. You didn't know that before, but now you do, so we good?

    Yes, I admit some of my later comments were tinted with frustration. There were several occasions over the last few years where a RRer pretended to a lawyer when it was clear he wasn't (no, I'm not being egotistical in my assumption here; lawyers reason a certain way and when not one argument sounds like a lawyer's, it's a perfectly acceptable conclusion). Legal debates are fun when the other person is trying to outwit you with creative applications of precedent; not so fun when they don't even understand the information they read from Wikipedia. I know you said you aren't a lawyer, and that's fine. I was only trying to convince you that perhaps logic and common sense is insufficient in guessing what the U.S. courts would do.

    Can we be friends now?

  3. #43
    Raptors Republic Starter MyMomLovesMe's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Streetsville
    Posts
    489
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Of course we can be friends, I harbour no ill will towards anyone here. (BTW good post, very well expressed)


    It's very hard for me to find the information you are asking me for. All I have is google at my disposal, as for US law and precedent setting cases. That is quite the assignment and I don't have the resources, but I would imagine that there are cases where the BREECH FEE were extraordinarily high and some resolution was mitigated.

    As for reason and logic, I have always felt that a "reasonable expectation" is very close to the framework of most laws. Obviously this varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, and like you yourself point out even lawyers need the assistance of other lawyers in matters that are away from their specialty.


    I did find something interesting on a legal definition site:

    http://www.gillhams.com/dictionary/183.cfm

    Term: damages

    1.

    Damages are a pecuniary remedy. Damages are principally compensatory in nature such that a claimant is placed in the position they would have been if the act or omission that was contrary to law had not taken place. Damages are sought by claimants in litigation, and the remedy seeks to compensate the innocent party in money for the losses suffered by the particular breach of the law.

    Particular rules for assessment of damages apply depending on the area of law that the plaintiff has established liability in the defendant. For instance, damages for breach of contract are assessed with the reference point of the date of the contract; in tort, damages are assessed as at the date of the tort was committed; in the infringement of intellectual property rights, damages are awarded for the losses sustained by the intellectual property rights owner with reference to the misuse of the intellectual property rights without the consent of the owner.

    Contract Damages

    Damages in breach of contract disputes are assessed with reference to the minimum legal obligations under the contract. Where loss cannot be proved, the claimant is only entitled to nominal damages.

    The interests that are recoverable are expectation, reliance, performance and restitutionary interests. Expectation interests pertain to the benefits which the claimant would reasonably expect to receive from a proper performance of the contract without breach, but were lost due to the breach of contract by the defendant. The reliance interest sounds in the expense or loss incurred by the claimant in preparing to perform the contract which has been wasted due to the failure to perform by the defendant. The performance interest in damages is reflected in the interest in performance which is readily recognised in terms of money.

    Claimants are not entitled to recover damage that is too remote or damage that they have failed to mitigate.

    Intellectual Property Damages

    Damages claims are also able to be made under copyright legislation. For instance, additional damages, which are damages over and above the usual measure may be awarded on a discretionary basis where some benefit has been obtained by the infringer, or there has been a blatant disregard for the rights' owners legal entitlements.

    Usage: The claimant was awarded damages by the court arising from the breach of contract.

    Related Words: consequential loss; direct loss; nominal damages; liquidated damages; penalties; breach of contract; account of profits; quantum meruit; contributory negligence; contract; mitigation of damage; remoteness of damage; assessment of damages; general damages; anticipatory breach of contract; special damages; financial loss.
    The wording above alludes to reasonable expectations, and minimal obligations. To me, just based on the wording above, it would seem that pinning unrealistic expectations of JV's contract would violate the above wordage.

    To say he has cost his club 3 Million in damages, when he only gets paid 60K Euro, is beyond these obligations and expectations. His performance can only be compensated for in a minimal sense. The expectations of such a player should be basic. The success of his production are beyond the reasonable boundaries of his contract, as reflected by the compensation thereof.

    To suddenly put the entire franchise on the shoulder of this one player, when it suits you, does not mesh with "minimal obligation" to me. It wouldn't be fair to use the upside as montery judgment due to the performance of the player in given short span, and ignore lets say the potential down side to injury on the flip side.

    So I would assume, that this is why the law stays away from extremes, and compensates for "minimal obligation". JV was never signed to carry the team, he was not the captain, his initial compensation by the club reflects a contract of a role player.


    EDIT: (btw, he can still fulfill his contract by performing poorly, so his performance, should not be a measure of loss, if you go by the wording of "minimal legal obligation under the contract")

    Now, even though I think this matter could be turned in court, it will not be, because the NBA does not want to go there. JV is not worth risking the economic ties that the NBA has fostered with the Eurolegue. So when I said, it was a gentleman's agreement, I meant that even though the NBA is not pleased with some of the tactics being used in Europe to leverage money from its clubs. It does not involve itself in these matters other than to cap the possible buy out that an NBA teams can pay.
    Last edited by MyMomLovesMe; Mon Jun 6th, 2011 at 02:48 AM.

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •