[Giants]

A legal question for our attorney-posters….

1. Entity A signs a contractual agreement to pay Entity B a set fee if after one year of doing business together Entity A decides to poach assets from Entity B.  The set fee is based upon the number of assets poached.

2.  Following the poaching of multiple assets from Entity B, Entity A files a lawsuit claiming they do not owe the set fee because Entity A was under duress at the time of signing the contract because to do otherwise would have led to the extinction of their business.  In other words, B had A over a barrel and took advantage of their position.  

In your opinion, does A have a case?  If so, shouldn’t B have known their position was built on a sandy base and would not stand up to a legal challenge?  Why in the world wouldn’t their legal staff know this?  

College athletics today - a world in which contracts mean nothing and the new motto is “See you in court”.

[Giants]

A legal question for our attorney-posters….

1. Entity A signs a contractual agreement to pay Entity B a set fee if after one year of doing business together Entity A decides to poach assets from Entity B.  The set fee is based upon the number of assets poached.

2.  Following the poaching of multiple assets from Entity B, Entity A files a lawsuit claiming they do not owe the set fee because Entity A was under duress at the time of signing the contract because to do otherwise would have led to the extinction of their business.  In other words, B had A over a barrel and took advantage of their position.  

In your opinion, does A have a case?  If so, shouldn’t B have known their position was built on a sandy base and would not stand up to a legal challenge?  Why in the world wouldn’t their legal staff know this?  

College athletics today - a world in which contracts mean nothing and the new motto is “See you in court”.

[martyup]

It would be tough to win a case to void a contract based on duress, when the duress was economic.  Business is inherently risky.  Unless there is fraud involved, company A entered the contract knowing the risks and knowing the consequences of poaching the assets of B.

[martyup]

It would be tough to win a case to void a contract based on duress, when the duress was economic.  Business is inherently risky.  Unless there is fraud involved, company A entered the contract knowing the risks and knowing the consequences of poaching the assets of B.

[TrumpCard]

People use the justice system to avoid fulfilling contractual obligations all the time.  They renegotiate the deal after they make it use the threat of litigation to get the other side to accept.  That strategy works until their reputation catches up with them.

[TrumpCard]

People use the justice system to avoid fulfilling contractual obligations all the time.  They renegotiate the deal after they make it use the threat of litigation to get the other side to accept.  That strategy works until their reputation catches up with them.

[Mick]

A legal question for our attorney-posters….

1. Entity A signs a contractual agreement to pay Entity B a set fee if after one year of doing business together Entity A decides to poach assets from Entity B.  The set fee is based upon the number of assets poached.

2.  Following the poaching of multiple assets from Entity B, Entity A files a lawsuit claiming they do not owe the set fee because Entity A was under duress at the time of signing the contract because to do otherwise would have led to the extinction of their business.  In other words, B had A over a barrel and took advantage of their position.  

In your opinion, does A have a case?  If so, shouldn’t B have known their position was built on a sandy base and would not stand up to a legal challenge?  Why in the world wouldn’t their legal staff know this?  

College athletics today - a world in which contracts mean nothing and the new motto is “See you in court”.

This sounds a bit like the Pac-12's suit against the MWC.
Pac-12 Conference files lawsuit against Mountain West over potential 'poaching fee' (msn.com)

[Mick]

A legal question for our attorney-posters….

1. Entity A signs a contractual agreement to pay Entity B a set fee if after one year of doing business together Entity A decides to poach assets from Entity B.  The set fee is based upon the number of assets poached.

2.  Following the poaching of multiple assets from Entity B, Entity A files a lawsuit claiming they do not owe the set fee because Entity A was under duress at the time of signing the contract because to do otherwise would have led to the extinction of their business.  In other words, B had A over a barrel and took advantage of their position.  

In your opinion, does A have a case?  If so, shouldn’t B have known their position was built on a sandy base and would not stand up to a legal challenge?  Why in the world wouldn’t their legal staff know this?  

College athletics today - a world in which contracts mean nothing and the new motto is “See you in court”.

This sounds a bit like the Pac-12's suit against the MWC.
Pac-12 Conference files lawsuit against Mountain West over potential 'poaching fee' (msn.com)

[82 Card]

A legal question for our attorney-posters….

1. Entity A signs a contractual agreement to pay Entity B a set fee if after one year of doing business together Entity A decides to poach assets from Entity B.  The set fee is based upon the number of assets poached.

2.  Following the poaching of multiple assets from Entity B, Entity A files a lawsuit claiming they do not owe the set fee because Entity A was under duress at the time of signing the contract because to do otherwise would have led to the extinction of their business.  In other words, B had A over a barrel and took advantage of their position.  

In your opinion, does A have a case?  If so, shouldn’t B have known their position was built on a sandy base and would not stand up to a legal challenge?  Why in the world wouldn’t their legal staff know this?  

College athletics today - a world in which contracts mean nothing and the new motto is “See you in court”.

This sounds a bit like the Pac-12's suit against the MWC.
Pac-12 Conference files lawsuit against Mountain West over potential 'poaching fee' (msn.com)

A little bit of info on the lawsuit here: https://sports.yahoo.com/pac-12-files-la...06036.html

Mountain West may have a hard time enforcing the charge as liquidated damages. They would need to show that the amount set in the scheduling agreement was a reasonable estimate (looking prospectively at the time the agreement was signed) of likely damages they would incur from poaching in violation of a promise not to poach. If the charge is not a reasonable estimate of likely damages, it is a penalty rather than liquidated damages. A penalty is not enforceable. That is why the PAC12 refers to it as a penalty now. I doubt the original agreement used penalty. If the scheduling agreement really had a no poaching promise and the charge set in the agreement is deemed a penalty, the Mountain West could still collect actual damages that they can prove.

[82 Card]

A legal question for our attorney-posters….

1. Entity A signs a contractual agreement to pay Entity B a set fee if after one year of doing business together Entity A decides to poach assets from Entity B.  The set fee is based upon the number of assets poached.

2.  Following the poaching of multiple assets from Entity B, Entity A files a lawsuit claiming they do not owe the set fee because Entity A was under duress at the time of signing the contract because to do otherwise would have led to the extinction of their business.  In other words, B had A over a barrel and took advantage of their position.  

In your opinion, does A have a case?  If so, shouldn’t B have known their position was built on a sandy base and would not stand up to a legal challenge?  Why in the world wouldn’t their legal staff know this?  

College athletics today - a world in which contracts mean nothing and the new motto is “See you in court”.

This sounds a bit like the Pac-12's suit against the MWC.
Pac-12 Conference files lawsuit against Mountain West over potential 'poaching fee' (msn.com)

A little bit of info on the lawsuit here: https://sports.yahoo.com/pac-12-files-la...06036.html

Mountain West may have a hard time enforcing the charge as liquidated damages. They would need to show that the amount set in the scheduling agreement was a reasonable estimate (looking prospectively at the time the agreement was signed) of likely damages they would incur from poaching in violation of a promise not to poach. If the charge is not a reasonable estimate of likely damages, it is a penalty rather than liquidated damages. A penalty is not enforceable. That is why the PAC12 refers to it as a penalty now. I doubt the original agreement used penalty. If the scheduling agreement really had a no poaching promise and the charge set in the agreement is deemed a penalty, the Mountain West could still collect actual damages that they can prove.

[TrumpCard]

Oh, the Pac-12 is arguing that the entire deal is an unenforceable and illegal restraint on trade.  Don't let most of the lawyers here tell you whether or not that argument has merit.  Most of us don't have a copy of the contract, don't know whether the Pac-12 is pursuing claims under federal law or the law of some state that's supposedly applicable, and don't know whether the applicable law allows or disallows the particular agreement here.  Until someone bills you a few thousand bucks for the research and malpractice liability attaches, just stick with your gut and you probably have as much chance of we do of being right.

[TrumpCard]

Oh, the Pac-12 is arguing that the entire deal is an unenforceable and illegal restraint on trade.  Don't let most of the lawyers here tell you whether or not that argument has merit.  Most of us don't have a copy of the contract, don't know whether the Pac-12 is pursuing claims under federal law or the law of some state that's supposedly applicable, and don't know whether the applicable law allows or disallows the particular agreement here.  Until someone bills you a few thousand bucks for the research and malpractice liability attaches, just stick with your gut and you probably have as much chance of we do of being right.

[82lsju]

The Pac-12 has filed a lawsuit against the MW inf ederal court over the massive fees associated with the former conference taking members from the latter conference.

https://nevadasportsnet.com/newsletter-d...es-invalid

some more details

https://nevadasportsnet.com/news/reporte...o-poach-mw

the agreement

https://www.scribd.com/document/69800322...from_embed

[82lsju]

The Pac-12 has filed a lawsuit against the MW inf ederal court over the massive fees associated with the former conference taking members from the latter conference.

https://nevadasportsnet.com/newsletter-d...es-invalid

some more details

https://nevadasportsnet.com/news/reporte...o-poach-mw

the agreement

https://www.scribd.com/document/69800322...from_embed

[82 Card]

The complaint: https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-conten...plaint.pdf

[82 Card]

The complaint: https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-conten...plaint.pdf

[Giants]

Thanks for digging up the links to both the contract and the complaint.  Since it was filed in NorCal District Court, I wonder is Judge Wilken will be assigned the case.

[Giants]

Thanks for digging up the links to both the contract and the complaint.  Since it was filed in NorCal District Court, I wonder is Judge Wilken will be assigned the case.

[jonnyss]

since non-attorneys were welcome to hold opinions, i offer as a layman that it would seem to depend on what the pac-12 bought for the price of the poaching penalty. it does indeed seem to me that the pac-12 is correct to assert that the poaching penalties are unreasonably high for the privilege of scheduling games. i believe there is a typical fee paid to a (visiting) school for playing. these fees are way higher.

[jonnyss]

since non-attorneys were welcome to hold opinions, i offer as a layman that it would seem to depend on what the pac-12 bought for the price of the poaching penalty. it does indeed seem to me that the pac-12 is correct to assert that the poaching penalties are unreasonably high for the privilege of scheduling games. i believe there is a typical fee paid to a (visiting) school for playing. these fees are way higher.

[jacket3ree]

Freedom of Contract says Entity A has no case.  A court consisting of human beings might say otherwise. Because....human beings.

I'm not an attorney, but I'm working after hours right now on a case for one. He found the smoking gun document from 2001 that should shut the door, even to a dumb engineer like me. Still, I need to run more calculations because as the attorney says....you have to convince 12 idiots or one idiot if it is a bench trial. "I need idiot proof."  "Isn't this idiot proof - two sentences say everything in plain language?" "Nope, you don't know the idiots I deal with on the daily."

[jacket3ree]

Freedom of Contract says Entity A has no case.  A court consisting of human beings might say otherwise. Because....human beings.

I'm not an attorney, but I'm working after hours right now on a case for one. He found the smoking gun document from 2001 that should shut the door, even to a dumb engineer like me. Still, I need to run more calculations because as the attorney says....you have to convince 12 idiots or one idiot if it is a bench trial. "I need idiot proof."  "Isn't this idiot proof - two sentences say everything in plain language?" "Nope, you don't know the idiots I deal with on the daily."

[TonyLima]

Freedom of Contract says Entity A has no case.  A court consisting of human beings might say otherwise. Because....human beings.

I'm not an attorney, but I'm working after hours right now on a case for one. He found the smoking gun document from 2001 that should shut the door, even to a dumb engineer like me. Still, I need to run more calculations because as the attorney says....you have to convince 12 idiots or one idiot if it is a bench trial. "I need idiot proof."  "Isn't this idiot proof - two sentences say everything in plain language?" "Nope, you don't know the idiots I deal with on the daily."

In my very limited experience as an expert witness, this is 100% correct.

[TonyLima]

Freedom of Contract says Entity A has no case.  A court consisting of human beings might say otherwise. Because....human beings.

I'm not an attorney, but I'm working after hours right now on a case for one. He found the smoking gun document from 2001 that should shut the door, even to a dumb engineer like me. Still, I need to run more calculations because as the attorney says....you have to convince 12 idiots or one idiot if it is a bench trial. "I need idiot proof."  "Isn't this idiot proof - two sentences say everything in plain language?" "Nope, you don't know the idiots I deal with on the daily."

In my very limited experience as an expert witness, this is 100% correct.