Sauerbrun NFLPA grievance hearing held today

[patchick]

I certainly can't hazard a guess whether the first-refusal provision was done properly. But here's what bothers me...

The right of first refusal was a benefit the Patriots negotiated for as part of a deal. The player presumably received other concessions/benefits in return. The league accepted the contract, and the Patriots paid the player in full.

So you have a deal negotiated and agreed to based on benefits to both sides, and most of its terms have already been executed. You can't undo Sauerbrun playing for the team, and you can bet he doesn't intend to give back a penny. This isn't simply a matter of voiding a contract, it's unbalancing it. How can you declare one side of a contract void but not the other?

 

[Pujo]

I certainly can't hazard a guess whether the first-refusal provision was done properly. But here's what bothers me...

The right of first refusal was a benefit the Patriots negotiated for as part of a deal. The player presumably received other concessions/benefits in return. The league accepted the contract, and the Patriots paid the player in full.

So you have a deal negotiated and agreed to based on benefits to both sides, and most of its terms have already been executed. You can't undo Sauerbrun playing for the team, and you can bet he doesn't intend to give back a penny. This isn't simply a matter of voiding a contract, it's unbalancing it. How can you declare one side of a contract void but not the other?

Most contracts in the real-world (I don't know specifically about NFL ones) have something called a severibility clause. It says that if any part of the contract is declared invalid or unenforceable, the remainder of the contract is still in effect.

I agree that it looks like the Patriots negotiated that provision with Sauerbrun and his agent in good faith, and the arbitator could take that into account.

 

[PatsFaninAZ]

I certainly can't hazard a guess whether the first-refusal provision was done properly. But here's what bothers me...

The right of first refusal was a benefit the Patriots negotiated for as part of a deal. The player presumably received other concessions/benefits in return. The league accepted the contract, and the Patriots paid the player in full.

So you have a deal negotiated and agreed to based on benefits to both sides, and most of its terms have already been executed. You can't undo Sauerbrun playing for the team, and you can bet he doesn't intend to give back a penny. This isn't simply a matter of voiding a contract, it's unbalancing it. How can you declare one side of a contract void but not the other?

Theoretically, you could declare the whole thing void if the illegal or unenforceable item is so integral to the contract that it would not have been done without it.

But the remedies in that kind of scenario where both teams have already performed, in full, their obligations under the rest of the contract are extremely limited. You're possible right that the patriots could try to sue Saurbrun and extract as "unjust enrichment" some dollar value equivalent to the benefits they gave up in exchange for the ROFR. They would never win that though -- good luck meeting their burden of proof, and there are all sorts of defenses. It's an equitable doctrine, and ultimately the key argument would be a waiver one -- you should have read the CBA more carefully. Plus, even if there weren't defenses, it would be idiotic for them to do that. It's a loser case with uncertain and modest if any recovery that doesn't come close to the benefit of suing a player.