jrry32 Posted October 15, 2017 Share Posted October 15, 2017 1 hour ago, mse326 said: I almost think of it in terms of contract law in this way. The teams are paying the players to play. The players play to attain money. Since a contract needs consideration on both sides legally playing needs to be a "burden" on the players. If it is is a benefit, such that saying they can't play is considered harm, Then what is the consideration the player gives in the contract? Now I know since consideration only needs to be present rather than equal they could claim the requirement that they show up for practice and keep in shape is the consideration, but common sense, not to mention NFLPA statements and player statements in contract situations, make it a hard sell to say that they don't view playing as the burden/consideration in the contract. EDIT: And for you tree analogy it is irreparable harm to the environment/ecosystem of the area and groups that sue are standing in for that, not themselves. In this situation the team has irreparable harm, I never argued otherwise, but I don't think it should be considered a harm to the players. You don't need a benefit and a burden. You can have a benefit and a benefit in contract law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mse326 Posted October 15, 2017 Share Posted October 15, 2017 2 minutes ago, jrry32 said: You don't need a benefit and a burden. You can have a benefit and a benefit in contract law. Then where is your consideration? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrry32 Posted October 15, 2017 Share Posted October 15, 2017 1 minute ago, mse326 said: Then where is your consideration? What's the consideration? You know the answer. The players are trading their services for the NFL's money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mse326 Posted October 15, 2017 Share Posted October 15, 2017 Just now, jrry32 said: What's the consideration? You know the answer. The players are trading their services for the NFL's money. Exactly. But that means their services are a burden for them to give, not a benefit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrry32 Posted October 15, 2017 Share Posted October 15, 2017 Just now, mse326 said: Exactly. But that means their services are a burden for them to give, not a benefit. No, it doesn't. Actors/actresses are a great comparison. Being wrongfully denied the opportunity to act in a blockbuster film could be an irreparable harm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mse326 Posted October 15, 2017 Share Posted October 15, 2017 2 minutes ago, jrry32 said: No, it doesn't. Actors/actresses are a great comparison. Being wrongfully denied the opportunity to act in a blockbuster film could be an irreparable harm. Do you have a case that forces the producers to hire the actor/actress or retain them if already hired? Or do you just believe that is irreparable harm? I know some theories of consideration are moving away from the benefit-detriment theory, but that is still the oldest and and primary theory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrry32 Posted October 15, 2017 Share Posted October 15, 2017 2 minutes ago, mse326 said: Do you have a case that forces the producers to hire the actor/actress or retain them if already hired? Or do you just believe that is irreparable harm? I know some theories of consideration are moving away from the benefit-detriment theory, but that is still the oldest and and primary theory. Not off the top of my head. It's an analogy to show that trading services for compensation isn't necessarily a burden. Plus, the benefit-detriment theory is largely being abandoned for the bargain theory. However, I do have at least four or five cases that found irreparable harm in the same situation as Zeke's (as I said previously). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
raiderrocker18 Posted October 16, 2017 Share Posted October 16, 2017 Zekes team just filed a motion for a TRO in New York. Argument expected as early as Tuesday. If he is granted the TRO it's a really strong indicator that he will eventually get the injunction, too Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GSUeagles14 Posted October 17, 2017 Share Posted October 17, 2017 On 10/15/2017 at 7:23 PM, mse326 said: Do you have a case that forces the producers to hire the actor/actress or retain them if already hired? Or do you just believe that is irreparable harm? I know some theories of consideration are moving away from the benefit-detriment theory, but that is still the oldest and and primary theory. sort of off topic, are both you and jrry lawyers/in law school? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mse326 Posted October 17, 2017 Share Posted October 17, 2017 45 minutes ago, GSUeagles14 said: sort of off topic, are both you and jrry lawyers/in law school? I graduated law school and passed the bar but don't currently work as a lawyer, though am still a member. I believe @jrry32 just graduated in the last year or 2 from law school. I think he works as a lawyer but am not sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrry32 Posted October 17, 2017 Share Posted October 17, 2017 2 minutes ago, mse326 said: I graduated law school and passed the bar but don't currently work as a lawyer, though am still a member. I believe @jrry32 just graduated in the last year or 2 from law school. I think he works as a lawyer but am not sure. This is correct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronjon1990 Posted October 17, 2017 Share Posted October 17, 2017 2 minutes ago, jrry32 said: This is correct. Woo more attorneys on the board. Congrats, btw. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigbadbuff23835 Posted October 17, 2017 Share Posted October 17, 2017 Apparently the appeal will be heard today Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MKnight82 Posted October 17, 2017 Share Posted October 17, 2017 14 hours ago, jrry32 said: This is correct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
raiderrocker18 Posted October 17, 2017 Share Posted October 17, 2017 2 hours ago, bigbadbuff23835 said: Apparently the appeal will be heard today Nah. He has a hearing for a temporary restraining order in New York today (2:15pm eastern). There's still no word on if he'll be granted an appeal in Texas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.