Author Topic: The Truth posts picture on Instagram with Ray  (Read 1949 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: The Truth posts picture on Instagram with Ray
« Reply #45 on: September 12, 2017, 09:05:41 AM »

Offline Moranis

  • JoJo White
  • ****************
  • Posts: 16503
  • Tommy Points: 783
Since it's a business, I don't see why demanding a trade doesn't fall within the bounds of business options for players. The team can just refuse the demand and not trade the player. The player then either refuses to play or he plays. Or the team accepts the demand and makes the trade. Simple.

Part of legitimate business is honoring contracts.
That just isn't true.  Sometimes the best business decision is breaking a contract.  As long as you pay for the consequences it is a perfectly legitimate business practice.  Similar to bankruptcy and any number of other tactics to avoid doing something legally.

"Paying for the consequences" meaning damages, attorneys fees, loss of reputation, etc.  In other words, the business version of a "Judas".
Nope.  It isn't a "traitor" to break a contract because a contract does not equal loyalty and there are actual consequences for breaking a contract that are in fact written into the contract.  Whereas if the relationship is one of loyalty there are no such consequences.  Just about the only situation where both a contract and loyalty exist is a marriage.  But a marriage is the exception not the rule. 
Ohio State 2014/15 National Champions.

Re: The Truth posts picture on Instagram with Ray
« Reply #46 on: September 12, 2017, 09:22:20 AM »

Offline Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • Walter Brown
  • ********************************
  • Posts: 32496
  • Tommy Points: -28032
  • 33,333 posts and counting . . .
Since it's a business, I don't see why demanding a trade doesn't fall within the bounds of business options for players. The team can just refuse the demand and not trade the player. The player then either refuses to play or he plays. Or the team accepts the demand and makes the trade. Simple.

Part of legitimate business is honoring contracts.
That just isn't true.  Sometimes the best business decision is breaking a contract.  As long as you pay for the consequences it is a perfectly legitimate business practice.  Similar to bankruptcy and any number of other tactics to avoid doing something legally.

"Paying for the consequences" meaning damages, attorneys fees, loss of reputation, etc.  In other words, the business version of a "Judas".
Nope.  It isn't a "traitor" to break a contract because a contract does not equal loyalty and there are actual consequences for breaking a contract that are in fact written into the contract.  Whereas if the relationship is one of loyalty there are no such consequences.  Just about the only situation where both a contract and loyalty exist is a marriage.  But a marriage is the exception not the rule.

Wilful breach includes punitive damages in many jurisdictions. Punitive, as in punishment? Why? Because intentional breach of contract is regarded as a bad thing, and a violation of the covenant of good faith involved in every contract.

Aren't you an attorney who handles contracts regularly? You should know this stuff, and I expect that you do.


Once a CrotoNat, always a CrotoNat.  CelticsBlog Draft Champions, 2009 & 2012;
DKC Draft 2015 Champions and beyond...

Re: The Truth posts picture on Instagram with Ray
« Reply #47 on: September 12, 2017, 09:23:06 AM »

Offline Ogaju

  • Paul Silas
  • ******
  • Posts: 6278
  • Tommy Points: 469
Since it's a business, I don't see why demanding a trade doesn't fall within the bounds of business options for players. The team can just refuse the demand and not trade the player. The player then either refuses to play or he plays. Or the team accepts the demand and makes the trade. Simple.

Part of legitimate business is honoring contracts.
That just isn't true.  Sometimes the best business decision is breaking a contract.  As long as you pay for the consequences it is a perfectly legitimate business practice.  Similar to bankruptcy and any number of other tactics to avoid doing something legally.

"Paying for the consequences" meaning damages, attorneys fees, loss of reputation, etc.  In other words, the business version of a "Judas".
Nope.  It isn't a "traitor" to break a contract because a contract does not equal loyalty and there are actual consequences for breaking a contract that are in fact written into the contract.  Whereas if the relationship is one of loyalty there are no such consequences.  Just about the only situation where both a contract and loyalty exist is a marriage.  But a marriage is the exception not the rule.

I have to respectfully disagree with Moranis on this one. There are lots of contracts  that require loyalty. Those are the contracts that create fiduciary relationships (relationships of trust). Actually in California most if not all employment contracts create what is referred to as a covenant of good faith and fair dealing between the parties. Contracts are often broken, but to imply that contracts are made to be broken is not correct. Western civilization and commerce actually depend on people and organizations honoring their contracts otherwise the entire mercantile system will collapse.

Re: The Truth posts picture on Instagram with Ray
« Reply #48 on: September 12, 2017, 09:31:41 AM »

Offline RLewis35

  • Jayson Tatum
  • Posts: 314
  • Tommy Points: 52
  • I drink and I know things
Since it's a business, I don't see why demanding a trade doesn't fall within the bounds of business options for players. The team can just refuse the demand and not trade the player. The player then either refuses to play or he plays. Or the team accepts the demand and makes the trade. Simple.

Part of legitimate business is honoring contracts.
That just isn't true.  Sometimes the best business decision is breaking a contract.  As long as you pay for the consequences it is a perfectly legitimate business practice.  Similar to bankruptcy and any number of other tactics to avoid doing something legally.

"Paying for the consequences" meaning damages, attorneys fees, loss of reputation, etc.  In other words, the business version of a "Judas".
Nope.  It isn't a "traitor" to break a contract because a contract does not equal loyalty and there are actual consequences for breaking a contract that are in fact written into the contract.  Whereas if the relationship is one of loyalty there are no such consequences.  Just about the only situation where both a contract and loyalty exist is a marriage.  But a marriage is the exception not the rule.

Wilful breach includes punitive damages in many jurisdictions. Punitive, as in punishment? Why? Because intentional breach of contract is regarded as a bad thing, and a violation of the covenant of good faith involved in every contract.

Aren't you an attorney who handles contracts regularly? You should know this stuff, and I expect that you do.

Unless a player receives a no trade clause, his contract may be traded.  There is no breach or breaking of contracts in the context of the NBA with respect to trades  and this comparison doesn't make sense because of that.

Re: The Truth posts picture on Instagram with Ray
« Reply #49 on: September 12, 2017, 09:37:34 AM »

Offline Moranis

  • JoJo White
  • ****************
  • Posts: 16503
  • Tommy Points: 783
Since it's a business, I don't see why demanding a trade doesn't fall within the bounds of business options for players. The team can just refuse the demand and not trade the player. The player then either refuses to play or he plays. Or the team accepts the demand and makes the trade. Simple.

Part of legitimate business is honoring contracts.
That just isn't true.  Sometimes the best business decision is breaking a contract.  As long as you pay for the consequences it is a perfectly legitimate business practice.  Similar to bankruptcy and any number of other tactics to avoid doing something legally.

"Paying for the consequences" meaning damages, attorneys fees, loss of reputation, etc.  In other words, the business version of a "Judas".
Nope.  It isn't a "traitor" to break a contract because a contract does not equal loyalty and there are actual consequences for breaking a contract that are in fact written into the contract.  Whereas if the relationship is one of loyalty there are no such consequences.  Just about the only situation where both a contract and loyalty exist is a marriage.  But a marriage is the exception not the rule.

Wilful breach includes punitive damages in many jurisdictions. Punitive, as in punishment? Why? Because intentional breach of contract is regarded as a bad thing, and a violation of the covenant of good faith involved in every contract.

Aren't you an attorney who handles contracts regularly? You should know this stuff, and I expect that you do.
Yeah, which is why I know that contracts are broken all of the time, sometimes intentionally, but more times unintentionally, but that is why contracts have default and breach provisions because it is foreseeable that a contract will in fact be broken.  Sometimes it is the best thing for a business to do.  And I have no idea what jurisdictions you practice in, but none of the ones I've ever come across allow for punitive damages for an intentional breach of contract.  Many contracts provide for attorney fees on a breach, but that is nowhere near the same thing as punitive damages. 
Ohio State 2014/15 National Champions.

Re: The Truth posts picture on Instagram with Ray
« Reply #50 on: September 12, 2017, 09:46:31 AM »

Offline Moranis

  • JoJo White
  • ****************
  • Posts: 16503
  • Tommy Points: 783
Since it's a business, I don't see why demanding a trade doesn't fall within the bounds of business options for players. The team can just refuse the demand and not trade the player. The player then either refuses to play or he plays. Or the team accepts the demand and makes the trade. Simple.

Part of legitimate business is honoring contracts.
That just isn't true.  Sometimes the best business decision is breaking a contract.  As long as you pay for the consequences it is a perfectly legitimate business practice.  Similar to bankruptcy and any number of other tactics to avoid doing something legally.

"Paying for the consequences" meaning damages, attorneys fees, loss of reputation, etc.  In other words, the business version of a "Judas".
Nope.  It isn't a "traitor" to break a contract because a contract does not equal loyalty and there are actual consequences for breaking a contract that are in fact written into the contract.  Whereas if the relationship is one of loyalty there are no such consequences.  Just about the only situation where both a contract and loyalty exist is a marriage.  But a marriage is the exception not the rule.

I have to respectfully disagree with Moranis on this one. There are lots of contracts  that require loyalty. Those are the contracts that create fiduciary relationships (relationships of trust). Actually in California most if not all employment contracts create what is referred to as a covenant of good faith and fair dealing between the parties. Contracts are often broken, but to imply that contracts are made to be broken is not correct. Western civilization and commerce actually depend on people and organizations honoring their contracts otherwise the entire mercantile system will collapse.
those are not the same thing as loyalty.  You are loyal to king or a political party.  You are loyal to your friends.  You are loyal to family.  A contractual relationship, even one built on trust, such as with your lawyer, accountant, doctor, etc., are not ones of loyalty.  There are outside legal (generally statutory) requirements in those contractual relationships that often outside of the actual contractual document, but it isn't loyalty.  Employment contracts again aren't about loyalty, but like trust relationships have extra legal built in protections i.e. you can't fire someone for race, age, sex, etc.  The covenant you talk of is about good faith, not breaching a contract.  You can breach a contract, even intentionally, and not be liable for acting in bad faith or breaching the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.  That is why contracts have breach provisions.  That is why contracts have damages already built into them.  Because people or entities breach contracts all the time, many times intentionally. 
Ohio State 2014/15 National Champions.

Re: The Truth posts picture on Instagram with Ray
« Reply #51 on: September 12, 2017, 10:33:35 AM »

Offline Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • Walter Brown
  • ********************************
  • Posts: 32496
  • Tommy Points: -28032
  • 33,333 posts and counting . . .
Since it's a business, I don't see why demanding a trade doesn't fall within the bounds of business options for players. The team can just refuse the demand and not trade the player. The player then either refuses to play or he plays. Or the team accepts the demand and makes the trade. Simple.

Part of legitimate business is honoring contracts.
That just isn't true.  Sometimes the best business decision is breaking a contract.  As long as you pay for the consequences it is a perfectly legitimate business practice.  Similar to bankruptcy and any number of other tactics to avoid doing something legally.

"Paying for the consequences" meaning damages, attorneys fees, loss of reputation, etc.  In other words, the business version of a "Judas".
Nope.  It isn't a "traitor" to break a contract because a contract does not equal loyalty and there are actual consequences for breaking a contract that are in fact written into the contract.  Whereas if the relationship is one of loyalty there are no such consequences.  Just about the only situation where both a contract and loyalty exist is a marriage.  But a marriage is the exception not the rule.

Wilful breach includes punitive damages in many jurisdictions. Punitive, as in punishment? Why? Because intentional breach of contract is regarded as a bad thing, and a violation of the covenant of good faith involved in every contract.

Aren't you an attorney who handles contracts regularly? You should know this stuff, and I expect that you do.

Unless a player receives a no trade clause, his contract may be traded.  There is no breach or breaking of contracts in the context of the NBA with respect to trades  and this comparison doesn't make sense because of that.

I don't think anybody is arguing that a contract can't be traded.

They're still contracts, though, and are legally enforceable.  Refusing to perform under a contract is breach.
« Last Edit: September 12, 2017, 10:45:02 AM by Roy H. »


Once a CrotoNat, always a CrotoNat.  CelticsBlog Draft Champions, 2009 & 2012;
DKC Draft 2015 Champions and beyond...

Re: The Truth posts picture on Instagram with Ray
« Reply #52 on: September 12, 2017, 10:44:29 AM »

Offline Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • Walter Brown
  • ********************************
  • Posts: 32496
  • Tommy Points: -28032
  • 33,333 posts and counting . . .
Since it's a business, I don't see why demanding a trade doesn't fall within the bounds of business options for players. The team can just refuse the demand and not trade the player. The player then either refuses to play or he plays. Or the team accepts the demand and makes the trade. Simple.

Part of legitimate business is honoring contracts.
That just isn't true.  Sometimes the best business decision is breaking a contract.  As long as you pay for the consequences it is a perfectly legitimate business practice.  Similar to bankruptcy and any number of other tactics to avoid doing something legally.

"Paying for the consequences" meaning damages, attorneys fees, loss of reputation, etc.  In other words, the business version of a "Judas".
Nope.  It isn't a "traitor" to break a contract because a contract does not equal loyalty and there are actual consequences for breaking a contract that are in fact written into the contract.  Whereas if the relationship is one of loyalty there are no such consequences.  Just about the only situation where both a contract and loyalty exist is a marriage.  But a marriage is the exception not the rule.

Wilful breach includes punitive damages in many jurisdictions. Punitive, as in punishment? Why? Because intentional breach of contract is regarded as a bad thing, and a violation of the covenant of good faith involved in every contract.

Aren't you an attorney who handles contracts regularly? You should know this stuff, and I expect that you do.
Yeah, which is why I know that contracts are broken all of the time, sometimes intentionally, but more times unintentionally, but that is why contracts have default and breach provisions because it is foreseeable that a contract will in fact be broken.  Sometimes it is the best thing for a business to do.  And I have no idea what jurisdictions you practice in, but none of the ones I've ever come across allow for punitive damages for an intentional breach of contract.  Many contracts provide for attorney fees on a breach, but that is nowhere near the same thing as punitive damages.

Delaware allows punitive damages for wilful breach, for instance. I'm sure you're aware of why Delaware is relevant for corporate contracts?



Once a CrotoNat, always a CrotoNat.  CelticsBlog Draft Champions, 2009 & 2012;
DKC Draft 2015 Champions and beyond...

Re: The Truth posts picture on Instagram with Ray
« Reply #53 on: September 12, 2017, 11:29:36 AM »

Offline Moranis

  • JoJo White
  • ****************
  • Posts: 16503
  • Tommy Points: 783
Since it's a business, I don't see why demanding a trade doesn't fall within the bounds of business options for players. The team can just refuse the demand and not trade the player. The player then either refuses to play or he plays. Or the team accepts the demand and makes the trade. Simple.

Part of legitimate business is honoring contracts.
That just isn't true.  Sometimes the best business decision is breaking a contract.  As long as you pay for the consequences it is a perfectly legitimate business practice.  Similar to bankruptcy and any number of other tactics to avoid doing something legally.

"Paying for the consequences" meaning damages, attorneys fees, loss of reputation, etc.  In other words, the business version of a "Judas".
Nope.  It isn't a "traitor" to break a contract because a contract does not equal loyalty and there are actual consequences for breaking a contract that are in fact written into the contract.  Whereas if the relationship is one of loyalty there are no such consequences.  Just about the only situation where both a contract and loyalty exist is a marriage.  But a marriage is the exception not the rule.

Wilful breach includes punitive damages in many jurisdictions. Punitive, as in punishment? Why? Because intentional breach of contract is regarded as a bad thing, and a violation of the covenant of good faith involved in every contract.

Aren't you an attorney who handles contracts regularly? You should know this stuff, and I expect that you do.
Yeah, which is why I know that contracts are broken all of the time, sometimes intentionally, but more times unintentionally, but that is why contracts have default and breach provisions because it is foreseeable that a contract will in fact be broken.  Sometimes it is the best thing for a business to do.  And I have no idea what jurisdictions you practice in, but none of the ones I've ever come across allow for punitive damages for an intentional breach of contract.  Many contracts provide for attorney fees on a breach, but that is nowhere near the same thing as punitive damages.

Delaware allows punitive damages for wilful breach, for instance. I'm sure you're aware of why Delaware is relevant for corporate contracts?
http://courts.delaware.gov/opinions/download.aspx?ID=163480

"In general, a plaintiff cannot recover punitive damages for breach of contract unless the conduct also amounts independently to a tort. In Pressman, the Delaware Supreme Court held that breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, in an employment relationship, was not an exception to the rule against punitive damages in breach of contract cases.  Here, Landry has alleged only (1) breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; and (2) breach of contract. Landry has not alleged any conduct by his employer, such as conversion, that would amount independently to a tort. Accordingly, punitive damages would not be available for any misconduct that could be found by a jury."

In other words, only if the breach of contract is so egregious that it independently rises to the level of an intentional tort for which punitive damages could be awarded (such as conversion), will a breach of contract allow for the recovery of punitive damages.  A breach of contract, even if intentional, does not afford punitive damages except in those rare circumstances that create a tort, even in the great state of Delaware.
Ohio State 2014/15 National Champions.

Re: The Truth posts picture on Instagram with Ray
« Reply #54 on: September 14, 2017, 10:22:06 AM »

Online Big333223

  • NCE
  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3191
  • Tommy Points: 280
Jackie MacMullan, on the Lowe post yesterday, said she's not surprised to see Pierce trying to bury the hatchet because Pierce is, by far, the most reasonable of the 4 (KG and Rondo, being the other two).

She also says she doesn't think the Allen/Rondo thing is likely to ever be fully resolved because that beef included "on the court and off the court stuff" but she didn't feel like it was her place to go into that stuff in depth. She also mentions that whatever beef there is among the 4 of them isn't just about Ray leaving for Miami.