Honoring Contracts

WhoDat · 06-22-2005, 09:06 AM

Your thinking is flawed Danno ole boy, in a few ways.

First, you say that a player enters the negotiations with any team knowing that the team reserves the right to release him, and therefore he should factor that in to his asking price, and then honor the agreement in full. However, the team, as a matter of pragmatism and experience, knows that if the player's performance improves significantly, he will negotiate for more money. The team also may never intend to pay the full contract amount (i.e. Joe Horn) by cutting the player before the payments escalate. As a matter of contract law, misrepresenting your intentions to secure a deal constitutes a breach of contract. Just play out your scenrio from the players perspective:

Joe Horn is a Pro Bowl WR. He wants to be paid like one. He bargains with the Saints to receive a $42 million contract that also helps the Saints cap situation in the short-term. Horn intends to perform as specified under the contract for 6 years. Horn returns to the Pro Bowl in 2005, 2006, and 2007. After the 2007 season, Horn's salary under the contract is scheduled to increase significantly. Despite having fulfilled his part of the deal fully, the team cuts Joe simply b/c the deal that they agreed to before no longer seems worthwhile to them.

In the real world, there are provisions against that very type of action. Generally, you cannot terminate a contract after receiving substantial performance without having performed equitably ("equally") on your end. (for more info look up the Uniform Commercial Code, Restatements (Second) of Contracts, or other information on requirements contracts).

Moreover, the idea of renegotiating due to changing business conditions/requirements is inherent in the laws governing commercial transactions (again see the Uniform Commercial Code). The law of contracts is largely one of commercial equity. Where the underlying instrument or service (here the player's performance) changes during the life of the contract, the parties are normally free to modify their agreement, and in some cases, they're even required to do so.

Finally, and maybe most importantly, most people misconstrue NFL contracts to be "commercial" agreements, when, in fact, they aren't. They are labor agreements. Simply b/c the numbers are bigger does not mean that the contract changes. Viewing them in this way, it's easy to see why players can and should hold out (as a last resort IMO). Just because the contract contains a time term does not change the fact that it is an agreement to work for the organization. In that sense, other than the salary components, Horn's contract with the Saints is essentially like yours with your employer. Generally, you are an at-will employee and your employer reserves the right to fire you at any time. However, you likewise generally reserve the right to quit on a dime, get up and walk out of your office, and if they need you, then they'll have to pay you to come back. Just b/c a player demands more money, and does so in the media, doesn't change the underlying legal principles that relate to these types of contracts.

The idea that a player has an employment contract, or even a contract to provide services, and he therefore should have to honor it fully while the team reserves the right to cancel at any time simply isn't grounded in any legal theory that I know of.

06-22-2005, 09:06 AM	#1
WhoDat 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 5,631	Your thinking is flawed Danno ole boy, in a few ways. First, you say that a player enters the negotiations with any team knowing that the team reserves the right to release him, and therefore he should factor that in to his asking price, and then honor the agreement in full. However, the team, as a matter of pragmatism and experience, knows that if the player's performance improves significantly, he will negotiate for more money. The team also may never intend to pay the full contract amount (i.e. Joe Horn) by cutting the player before the payments escalate. As a matter of contract law, misrepresenting your intentions to secure a deal constitutes a breach of contract. Just play out your scenrio from the players perspective: Joe Horn is a Pro Bowl WR. He wants to be paid like one. He bargains with the Saints to receive a $42 million contract that also helps the Saints cap situation in the short-term. Horn intends to perform as specified under the contract for 6 years. Horn returns to the Pro Bowl in 2005, 2006, and 2007. After the 2007 season, Horn's salary under the contract is scheduled to increase significantly. Despite having fulfilled his part of the deal fully, the team cuts Joe simply b/c the deal that they agreed to before no longer seems worthwhile to them. In the real world, there are provisions against that very type of action. Generally, you cannot terminate a contract after receiving substantial performance without having performed equitably ("equally") on your end. (for more info look up the Uniform Commercial Code, Restatements (Second) of Contracts, or other information on requirements contracts). Moreover, the idea of renegotiating due to changing business conditions/requirements is inherent in the laws governing commercial transactions (again see the Uniform Commercial Code). The law of contracts is largely one of commercial equity. Where the underlying instrument or service (here the player's performance) changes during the life of the contract, the parties are normally free to modify their agreement, and in some cases, they're even required to do so. Finally, and maybe most importantly, most people misconstrue NFL contracts to be "commercial" agreements, when, in fact, they aren't. They are labor agreements. Simply b/c the numbers are bigger does not mean that the contract changes. Viewing them in this way, it's easy to see why players can and should hold out (as a last resort IMO). Just because the contract contains a time term does not change the fact that it is an agreement to work for the organization. In that sense, other than the salary components, Horn's contract with the Saints is essentially like yours with your employer. Generally, you are an at-will employee and your employer reserves the right to fire you at any time. However, you likewise generally reserve the right to quit on a dime, get up and walk out of your office, and if they need you, then they'll have to pay you to come back. Just b/c a player demands more money, and does so in the media, doesn't change the underlying legal principles that relate to these types of contracts. The idea that a player has an employment contract, or even a contract to provide services, and he therefore should have to honor it fully while the team reserves the right to cancel at any time simply isn't grounded in any legal theory that I know of.
WhoDat 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 5,631	\"Excuses, excuses, excuses. ThatÃ¢Â€Â™s all anyone ever makes for the New Orleans SaintsÃ¢Â€Â™ organization.\" - Eric Narcisse \"Being a Saints fan is almost like being addicted to crack,\" he said.[i]\"You know you should stop, but you just can\'t.\"