OT: Would you ever hold out?

[Ring 6]

(Analogy below. Take it FWIW, I won't begrudge anyone choosing to ignore it entirely)
=====
Example: oilheat dealers frequently hedge against the potential for rising oil prices by purchasing forward contracts from oil suppliers. This allows them to lock in a certain (hopefully lower) price by promising to purchase a certain volume of oil at predetermined prices and predetermined dates. In the event of a warm winter month, end consumers frequently consume less than was projected, and as a result the dealer is not able to meet the purchasing obligation set forth in the contract. In of itself, this would constitute breach of contract, and the dealer would be exposed to a potential lawsuit. Luckily, there is a predetermined, agreed-upon penalty for under-lifting that's written right into the contract .

Why does the dealer agree to pay this penalty? Because it is an alternative means of satisfying the purchasing obligation. Both parties recognize that there is likely to be a scenario in which one party chooses not to fulfill its obligations on the contract, and as a result they agree upon a predetermined fee that is acceptable to both of them. The result is that the contract has not been breached and they can both stay out of court and maintain a productive business relationship.
======

By the same token, why do you think the NFLPA agreed to the fines and loss of free agency accrual that results from holdouts? The entire reason why these penalties exist is to shield holdouts from breach of contract liability so that every holdout doesn't end up in court. Since you seem to disagree that this is the case, I'm curious to hear what your explanation for them is.

.

Slipped this one in while I wasn't looking

Frankly, that is a horrible analogy.
The oil dealer is striking a price based upon expected need, over which he has no control, and knowing this is realistic both parties agree to what to do in that event.

That is not close to similar to I agree to work for you for 5 years at salaries of X, but now I think I should get more, so I will withhold the work product I promised.

The oil analogy would be that consumers choose the price for heating oil at the beginning of the season and lockin. Then oil prices go up and the oil company refuses to deliver unless the consumer pays the higher price. If the contract states that the oil company must deduct $10 off the consumers bill for every day they do not deliver oil, then they wait 30 days until oil prices go down, and give a $300.00 credit, your arguments say Grandma cannot sue for breach of contract for the month she had no heat because the oil company chose to accept the penalty and not provide the oil that was contracted for even though it could.
THAT is the analogy that fits here.

 

[BradyFTW!]

Slipped this one in while I wasn't looking

Frankly, that is a horrible analogy.
The oil dealer is striking a price based upon expected need, over which he has no control, and knowing this is realistic both parties agree to what to do in that event.

The oil dealer does not know how much oil his customers will demand, but he has 100% control over how much oil he purchases. If he does not fulfill the terms of the deal, it is because he chose not to purchase the amount that he agreed to purchase. This is usually because of a demand shortfall. It can also be because the current price + penalty is still less than the contracted price. In either case, it's irrelevant. The fact that expected need may or may not play into the decision to fulfill the contracted terms doesn't change the fact that he pays the penalty because he chose not to fulfill those terms.

The oil analogy would be that consumers choose the price for heating oil at the beginning of the season and lockin. Then oil prices go up and the oil company refuses to deliver unless the consumer pays the higher price. If the contract states that the oil company must deduct $10 off the consumers bill for every day they do not deliver oil, then they wait 30 days until oil prices go down, and give a $300.00 credit, your arguments say Grandma cannot sue for breach of contract for the month she had no heat because the oil company chose to accept the penalty and not provide the oil that was contracted for even though it could.
THAT is the analogy that fits here.

IF those terms were what was contracted, then that's true, Grandma would be unable to successfully sue for breach of contract. Once again, though, you've made up an absurd hypothetical contract that nobody in their right mind who had done any due diligence would agree to.

You've flipped it, though. The more apt analogy based on my argument would be the consumer locking in an unfavorable price, and choosing to pay the failure-to-buy penalties set forth in the contract rather than purchase oil at that price. In that case, yes, the dealer would be unable to sue the customer. That's the one and only reason why any consumer ever pays that penalty.

 

[Ring 6]

Not at all. The seven day letter hasn't been a part of this debate up to this point. If the CBA says that a player who fails to respond to his seven day letter can be sued for breach of contract, then so be it. In that case, the player has breached his contract. This is obviously a totally different scenario from your standard holdout.

Huh? A fact introduced to the argument that proves one side isnt relevant because it wasnt introduced at the beginning?
The 7 day letter informs the player he is in breach of contract and has 7 days to report. (7 may not be the right number, but the point is the same)

The only term that I've defined is that "permitted", as I'm using it, means "doesn't expose you to liability for breach of contract". Other people are free to define the terms however they want- I've made it abundantly clear that I'm not here to have a semantics debate.

But you are arguing the legality of something, based only upon the accpetance of your definition which is not the legallly accepted one.

Sure it does. It means that a player who holds out in accordance with CBA regulations and accepts the due penalties cannot be sued for damages.

You made that up, and its not true.

Why? Because he has acted within the rules set forth in the contract, aka he has not violated the contract. That pretty much is the topic of the thread.

That is 180 degrees wrong.
He VIOLATED the terms of the contract and is therefore subject to fine.
When I was fined for speeding are you saying I chose one of the 2 legal methods of driving? Obey or be fined? I didn't violate the law because I chose the fine instead. Thats just 180 degrees from correct.

If the contractual obligation is unmet, then by definition the offending party is exposed to legal action for breach of contract. The fact that the team cannot sue the player for further damages is a clear indication that the damages assessed constitute meeting the obligations set forth in the contract.

That is not a fact.
The mutual agreement to end the holdout is a resolution.
Holding out is a violation. IF the team sends the 7 day letter, it cannot accept the player back after it expires. They would sue.
Just as the absence from work example. I can go on a 3 day bender. I violated my contract. If I show up for work on the 4th day, sit down with the owner and work out a resolution so they do not sue me, that does not mean I was never in violation.
You are grasping so hard at straws.

It means that the player cannot be successfully sued for breach of contract, because, by definition, the terms of the contract are fulfilled.

Only if the dispute is resolved. Resolution does not mean he wasn't in violation before it was resolved.
You are trying to say he isn't breaching the contract while holding out because later when he reports he isn't in breach anymore.
That's like saying after having a child a woman wasn't pregnant.

If that wasn't the case, then the player would have no incentive whatsoever to accept the penalty in the first place,

What? You think there is an incentive for the player to want to be fined for not showing up?

which means that the PA would have no reason at all to agree to it, since it would be going to court either way.

You are joking right? Your 'proof' is that there couldn't be anything in the CBA that isn't 1005 favorable to the players? Why did they accept drug testing, the draft, rookie caps, any cap at all, etc, etc.

If you want to call that a breach, then, then once again, I'm not here to debate that with you. Call it what you want.

Well that's what it is, and you have been here to debate that all night.
Not showing up for your job when you are required to is a breach of contract.
Being fined is ONE OF THE REMEDIES.
I cant be any more clear.

 

[Ring 6]

The oil dealer does not know how much oil his customers will demand, but he has 100% control over how much oil he purchases. If he does not fulfill the terms of the deal, it is because he chose not to purchase the amount that he agreed to purchase. This is usually because of a demand shortfall. It can also be because the current price + penalty is still less than the contracted price. In either case, it's irrelevant. The fact that expected need may or may not play into the decision to fulfill the contracted terms doesn't change the fact that he pays the penalty because he chose not to fulfill those terms.

You are misusing 'penalty' here. The terms are agreed upon with full knowledge from both sides. The buyer pays more in order to receive the ability to buy less if necessary.
As I said it is a terrible, terrible analogy.

IF those terms were what was contracted, then that's true, Grandma would be unable to successfully sue for breach of contract. Once again, though, you've made up an absurd hypothetical contract that nobody in their right mind who had done any due diligence would agree to.

Actually you have been the one making up examples.
Why would no one agree to this? They are being used very prevalently already. Consumers agree to lock in a price ahead of the season. Just as a player agrees to lockin a salary years in advance.
If the oil company 'held out' they would be sued, and a clause in the contract stating what they pay for late delivery would not prohibit their clients from suing for going without heat.

One of the consequences of your mortgage is that if you are 15 days late you pay a late charge.
Another is that if you are severely late, the bank can accelerate your mortgage and start foreclosure. Acceleration means there is no longer a payment schedule, the full balance is due. Under your misunderstanding of the law, since the late charge was the consequence of being late, you can't be foreclosed upon. Actually in your misunderstanding you would say that if a mortgage existed that didn't say you be foreclosed upon if you didnt pay then you couldnt and being late was never a breach if you caught up some day.
Clearly you are not a lawyer, and thought you could sound like one.
Lets just end this because we are wasting a lot of cyberspace exposing that very evident reality.

 

[eom]

I'm not here to debate that with you.

he actually IS correct on this part.

debate would imply some rational train of thought, facts, and maybe a bit of logic.

 

[Ring 6]

Hey, no hard feelings here.
I'm through with this, I think there can't be many more ways to make my point.
I jumped into a conversation you started so go ahead and have the last word if you wish, my stance is clear, no sense going through "Tastes Great" "Less Filling" any longer.

Go Pats!!!

 

[PatsFanSince74]

If it wasn't an attempt at bravado, why say "I am going to ignore you" like its a punishment? Why not just start ignoring?

Wasting your breath, Andy.