Case Outlines

Client was given table and 4 chairs, coffee table, 1 side table,2 chairs lamps-inflatable air mattress very uncomfortable; by a friend.

The collective bargaining agreement between the National Hockey League and the player’s association stipulates that arbitration must be used initially in order to resolve disputes relating to salary, grievances, and system. A case that did a good job of demonstrating the authority of the collective bargaining agreement’s stipulation of an arbitration clause was McCourt v. California Sports, Incorporated. In this case plaintiff signed a National Hockey League Standard Players Contract to play professional hockey with defendant team. After defendant picked up a free agent from another team, the other team proposed that plaintiff's contract be assigned to it as compensation. An arbitrator agreed and plaintiff's contract was assigned. Plaintiff filed suit alleging that the reserve system and the assignment of his contract as compensation for the free agent violated § 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C.S. § 1 (1976). The district court entered a preliminary injunction restraining defendants, hockey league, team, and players' association, from enforcing the arbitration award and from penalizing plaintiff for refusing to

in the fix to uphold his end of the deal, and give the players the money they

Baseball is one of the nations pastimes, and accepting a black man playing baseball made it easier to see integration in more important instances. Branch Rickey was an innovative MLB executive who had high hopes for Robinson. Rickey saw the qualities that Jackie Robinson possessed and his hope was that he could use Jack to help break the color barrier. Respect and equality was important in Robinson 's career and he knew that blacks needed to be accepted in the Major Leagues in order for the league to be just. Having this knowledge made him stick with baseball even when he thought about quitting. Jackie 's commitment was one of the most important values for successfully breaking the color barrier, and his attitude of determination and persistence helped him fight for justice. With the help of Rickey and many peers, Jackie agreed to sign with the Dodgers, where he remained committed so that more could follow in his path on and off the field.

[I]t follows that Hennigan was not entitled to compensation for the 1967 football season from the Chargers. He suffered no injury while in the performance of any services required of him after the option was exercised. Consequently, he is not entitled to payment under paragraph 15 (the injury provision)

case brief---Gregory, a comedy writer, entered into a contract with Wessel, a comedian. The contract provided that Gregory would provide Wessel with a 15 minute monologue for his upcoming appearance on the comedy hour and Wessel will pay $250 to Gregory. All performers could make $500 per appearance on the comedy hour. and when Wessel was scheduled to aper on the comedy hour, Gregory informed him that he was unable to provide the monologue, because last time Wessel was asked to make special guest appearances at three local comedy clubs performance during the comedy hour. and Wessel bought lawsuit to Gregory for beach of contract and request damages of $1250.

Jacquelyn Young hired the law firm of Becker & Poliakoff to represent her in her federal employment discrimination lawsuit against her employer. The firm associate that filed the action made a mistake by attaching the wrong U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) right-to-sue letter. The court dismissed the claims. The law firm did not try to re-file using the correct attachment, or try to dismiss the motion. Thirteen months later, the law firm informed Young that the claims had been dismissed, and that the firm was withdrawing from representing her further with the case.

By granting Reebok an exclusive license, former vendors were deprived of the opportunity to enter and remain in the market, thus, an anti-competitive effect of the concerted activity. The NFL and its thirty-two franchises created an unreasonable restraint of trade of intellectual property. The Supreme Court remanded American Needle to the lower court to re-hear the issue of whether or not such agreement is reasonable. The Court stated that the lower courts should apply rule of reason analysis by analyzing the effect on competition in the

However, in the Kelly V FCT (1985) 16 ATR 478 case, the Commissioner assessed Kelly’s $20,000 prize received for being the ‘best and fairest player’ on the basis that, although unexpected, the prize directly related to his skill and performance as a professional footballer shown during the year. The $2,000 prize received in our case for being the ‘best TV advertisement of the year’ is more or less

A weakness is made by the way that John require just present a rundown of records and adds up to be charged to renew the unimportant money store. The supporting documentation for the frivolous money payment additionally ought to be submitted with John's rundown and looked into by another person. Astonishment numbers of the store additionally ought to be made to guarantee that the trust is being kept up on an imprest premise, that is, to guarantee that money and/or Receipts Square with $200 at all times.

(Dominique, 2008) If the teams did not agree to these terms, Commissioner Rozelle had the final say to decide what the compensation would be (Dominique, 2008), very similar to the final-offer in baseball. In Kapp v. National Football League, a federal district court concluded that the effect of the Rozelle Rule would be forever restraining a player from pursing his occupation and therefore was illegal. (Madden & Gilroy, 1977) A current affirmation of the results was issued in Mackey v. National Football League by a federal court of appeals. The court held that the case the Rozelle Rule operates to restrict a player’s ability to negotiate with other clubs after his contract has expired and establishes unreasonable restraints of trade in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. (Madden & Gilroy, 1977) The court further held that the Rozelle Rule establishes a bargaining subject within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act. Also, it was noted that the labor policy favoring collective bargaining may over power the anti-trust laws where the restraint on trade primarily affects only the parties to the collective bargaining relationship and involves a mandatory subject of bargaining. (Madden & Gilroy,

Great topic! Coaches who breach coaching contracts have been on the rise the past few years. One case that comes to mind is the 2011 incident in which then Kent State basketball coach, Geno Ford left his head coaching position at Kent State for the same position at Bradley University. A year prior to Ford’s resignation, Kent State renegotiated the head coaches contract, which increased Ford’s salary to $300,000 making him the highest paid basketball coach in the conference. The renegotiated contact included a clause that noted if Ford or Kent State canceled the agreement prior to March 31, 2015; the other party would get the balance of the base salary remaining in Ford’s contract (Biliczky, 2013)).

If she knowing breaks the terms of the agreement she would be legally responsible for repaying the recruitment fees and all money spent by the employer to ensure that she was situated at her position as well as all fees for recruiting someone else to replace her. I believe that the columnist was wrong to enter into a contractual agreement if her job search was not over and that if she really wanted the job she should have been honest with the employer and discuss not getting into a contractual position at the company while she pursues better pay and opportunity. The columnist was guided by her mind and conscience to do what was best for her at the time and was not thinking long term or the ramifications to the company if she decided to leave her contract early.

Q.      Sue Smasher was a promising young tennis player. In July 1991, when she was 16, she entered into the separate agreements, both of which were to run until July 1993. No. 1, with Lew Lobb, a noted tennis coach whereby he undertook to organize her training and decide which tournaments she should play in. In return, Sue agreed to act on Lew’s advice and pay him 20% of her winnings from tournaments. No. 2, with Drive Power Ltd, whereby Sue promised to use their sports equipment in return for Drive Power paying all her travel expenses.

In order for the breaching party in this case LCL to be liable, it is vital to distinguish whether the condition is a mere representation or a term. This will depict whether the party is liable. If it’s a mere representation this will generate a claim for misrepresentation rather than a breach of contract. In Birch v Paramount Estates it was specified that the greater the significance attached, the more likely it is a term.