View Single Post
Old
09-19-2004, 05:29 PM
  #12
David A. Rainer
Registered User
 
David A. Rainer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Huntington Beach
Country: Italy
Posts: 7,293
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to David A. Rainer
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdoak
#2. The NHL and NHLPA, by their actions, are directly hurting the revenue of these small buisnesses.
The NHL and NHLPA has no legal duty to those businesses. And those businesses enter into their lease agreements at their own risk. If the arena should to cease to be active, they assume the risk of loss and not the NHL or NHLPA.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mdoak
The point is not to start sucking money from the owners or the players union. The point is to apply enough pressure to force the NHL and the NHLPA to either go to an arbitrator or get this settled quickly.
But you cannot commandeer the legal process to do this. This reminds me of an old adage from law school - anyone can sue anyone for anything, but only lawsuits based in the law will get past the first day of motions.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mdoak
The question of the day is, is the fact that they have a lease with the city for the arena imply that the team in under the responsibility to fill the arena? If that can be proved, the disagreement between the NHL and NHLPA will be in violation of the arena leases. Alot of it will depend on the wording of the contract of the teams lease, and that will be where it can be attacked in the courts, and thus applying pressure.
No, it does not imply this. In fact, the contracts are replete with several clauses denying just that. And even if not, a craftily constructed force majeure clause would get the NHL out of any obligations to the arenas.

I see what you are saying, and it is a good argument in theory. But it is basic contract drafting 101 (if we are talking about suing on the contract and not sue in negligence, that is) to get out of any of this. And even if not, contract law does not recognize third party beneficiaries because they are not, what is called, "privy to the contract". They were not contemplated by the two parties involved in the contract and therefore have NO standing to sue (unless there is a violation of a law).

__________________
Saxon Sports Information and Research

Last edited by David A. Rainer: 09-19-2004 at 05:48 PM.
David A. Rainer is offline