|
Post by Orpheus on Apr 2, 2015 8:30:07 GMT -5
Exactly. Assuming that what is claimed in the story is true, then they have a real case for breech of contract. Your reasoning is spot on, but generally in a contract dispute, if there is a written document, then extrinsic evidence of additional terms, rights, or duties won't be considered no matter how compelling. Courts are pretty unforgiving even in a situation like this where attorneys were not involved in executing the contract. There is sometimes a way to get oral statements into evidence that might alter rights and duties if they were made after the agreement was signed, but if these alleged conversations took place before the kid signed on to the club, then an action for breach of contract could be futile. If you're curious to learn more, Google "parol evidence rule."
|
|
|
Post by volleyguy on Apr 2, 2015 9:45:09 GMT -5
Exactly. Assuming that what is claimed in the story is true, then they have a real case for breech of contract. Your reasoning is spot on, but generally in a contract dispute, if there is a written document, then extrinsic evidence of additional terms, rights, or duties won't be considered no matter how compelling. Courts are pretty unforgiving even in a situation like this where attorneys were not involved in executing the contract. There is sometimes a way to get oral statements into evidence that might alter rights and duties if they were made after the agreement was signed, but if these alleged conversations took place before the kid signed on to the club, then an action for breach of contract could be futile. If you're curious to learn more, Google "parol evidence rule." The parents sued the Region, not the club. The basis of that suit isn't entirely clear from the article, but it most likely was for "specific performance", not of the original contract, but of a settlement agreement between the club and the player's parents. When the club and the parents agreed to part ways, they essentially terminated the original contract. If the club and the parents entered into a new contract (a settlement agreement) that included the option to transfer to another club, then the parents presumably sued the Region to force them to implement the terms of that settlement agreement. The legal basis of the suit would be that even though the Region wasn't a signee to the settlement, the club is an agent of the Region, and the Region could/would be responsible or liable for the actions of its agents or sub-agents. The judge's ruling suggests that that was an unenforceable provision of the settlement agreement.
|
|
|
Post by Orpheus on Apr 2, 2015 9:49:54 GMT -5
Your reasoning is spot on, but generally in a contract dispute, if there is a written document, then extrinsic evidence of additional terms, rights, or duties won't be considered no matter how compelling. Courts are pretty unforgiving even in a situation like this where attorneys were not involved in executing the contract. There is sometimes a way to get oral statements into evidence that might alter rights and duties if they were made after the agreement was signed, but if these alleged conversations took place before the kid signed on to the club, then an action for breach of contract could be futile. If you're curious to learn more, Google "parol evidence rule." The parents sued the Region, not the club. The basis of that suit isn't entirely clear from the article, but it most likely was for "specific performance", not of the original contract, but of a settlement agreement between the club and the player's parents. When the club and the parents agreed to part ways, they essentially terminated the original contract. If the club and the parents entered into a new contract (a settlement agreement) that included the option to transfer to another club, then the parents presumably sued the Region to force them to implement the terms of that settlement agreement. The legal basis of the suit would be that even though the Region wasn't a signee to the settlement, the club is an agent of the Region, and the Region could/would be responsible or liable for the actions of its agents or sub-agents. The judge's ruling suggests that that was an unenforceable provision of the settlement agreement. I don't dispute any of that. My response was directly to mikegarrison, under the assumption he would appreciate learning about the parol evidence rule. Frankly, I didn't read the article and made no comment regarding how any of this should shake out.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Apr 2, 2015 9:54:00 GMT -5
Your reasoning is spot on, but generally in a contract dispute, if there is a written document, then extrinsic evidence of additional terms, rights, or duties won't be considered no matter how compelling. Courts are pretty unforgiving even in a situation like this where attorneys were not involved in executing the contract. There is sometimes a way to get oral statements into evidence that might alter rights and duties if they were made after the agreement was signed, but if these alleged conversations took place before the kid signed on to the club, then an action for breach of contract could be futile. If you're curious to learn more, Google "parol evidence rule." The parents sued the Region, not the club. The basis of that suit isn't entirely clear from the article, but it most likely was for "specific performance", not of the original contract, but of a settlement agreement between the club and the player's parents. When the club and the parents agreed to part ways, they essentially terminated the original contract. If the club and the parents entered into a new contract (a settlement agreement) that included the option to transfer to another club, then the parents presumably sued the Region to force them to implement the terms of that settlement agreement. The legal basis of the suit would be that even though the Region wasn't a signee to the settlement, the club is an agent of the Region, and the Region could/would be responsible or liable for the actions of its agents or sub-agents. The judge's ruling suggests that that was an unenforceable provision of the settlement agreement. According to the story, the judge didn't rule yet about the ultimate outcome of the suit. The ruling was only whether there would be a temporary injunction. In effect that means she's not going to be allowed to transfer this year, but if they continue the lawsuit they still could force the region to change their rules for future years. I would guess that they really were hoping the region would just settle and agree to let the player move. Now, assuming they have the money to spend, the suit is mainly going to be revenge against the region. Cause them to spend a lot of their money and maybe be forced to change their rules anyway.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Apr 2, 2015 9:54:23 GMT -5
The parents sued the Region, not the club. The basis of that suit isn't entirely clear from the article, but it most likely was for "specific performance", not of the original contract, but of a settlement agreement between the club and the player's parents. When the club and the parents agreed to part ways, they essentially terminated the original contract. If the club and the parents entered into a new contract (a settlement agreement) that included the option to transfer to another club, then the parents presumably sued the Region to force them to implement the terms of that settlement agreement. The legal basis of the suit would be that even though the Region wasn't a signee to the settlement, the club is an agent of the Region, and the Region could/would be responsible or liable for the actions of its agents or sub-agents. The judge's ruling suggests that that was an unenforceable provision of the settlement agreement. I don't dispute any of that. My response was directly to mikegarrison, under the assumption he would appreciate learning about the parol evidence rule. Frankly, I didn't read the article and made no comment regarding how any of this should shake out. I did appreciate it, thanks.
|
|
|
Post by volleyguy on Apr 2, 2015 9:57:43 GMT -5
The parents sued the Region, not the club. The basis of that suit isn't entirely clear from the article, but it most likely was for "specific performance", not of the original contract, but of a settlement agreement between the club and the player's parents. When the club and the parents agreed to part ways, they essentially terminated the original contract. If the club and the parents entered into a new contract (a settlement agreement) that included the option to transfer to another club, then the parents presumably sued the Region to force them to implement the terms of that settlement agreement. The legal basis of the suit would be that even though the Region wasn't a signee to the settlement, the club is an agent of the Region, and the Region could/would be responsible or liable for the actions of its agents or sub-agents. The judge's ruling suggests that that was an unenforceable provision of the settlement agreement. According to the story, the judge didn't rule yet about the ultimate outcome of the suit. The ruling was only whether there would be a temporary injunction. In effect that means she's not going to be allowed to transfer this year, but if they continue the lawsuit they still could force the region to change their rules for future years. I would guess that they really were hoping the region would just settle and agree to let the player move. Now, assuming they have the money to spend, the suit is mainly going to be revenge against the region. Cause them to spend a lot of their money and maybe be forced to change their rules anyway. The articles paraphrases the judge as saying he didn't have authority to intervene. That was his ruling.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Apr 2, 2015 10:06:20 GMT -5
According to the story, the judge didn't rule yet about the ultimate outcome of the suit. The ruling was only whether there would be a temporary injunction. In effect that means she's not going to be allowed to transfer this year, but if they continue the lawsuit they still could force the region to change their rules for future years. I would guess that they really were hoping the region would just settle and agree to let the player move. Now, assuming they have the money to spend, the suit is mainly going to be revenge against the region. Cause them to spend a lot of their money and maybe be forced to change their rules anyway. The articles paraphrases the judge as saying he didn't have authority to intervene. That was his ruling. Only in the context of a temporary injunction.
|
|
|
Post by volleyguy on Apr 2, 2015 10:16:14 GMT -5
The articles paraphrases the judge as saying he didn't have authority to intervene. That was his ruling. Only in the context of a temporary injunction. A temporary injunction is a temporary remedy. Forcing the transfer is a permanent remedy. A judge has more authority to impose a temporary injunction than he/she would to force a transfer. A more reasonable interpretation is that the judge ruled that he did not have authority to impose a transfer, and therefore refused to order a temporary injunction.
|
|
|
Post by bigfan on Apr 2, 2015 10:19:32 GMT -5
Your reasoning is spot on, but generally in a contract dispute, if there is a written document, then extrinsic evidence of additional terms, rights, or duties .................. If I am a parent and I am suing club/region etc............how much in fees to the lawyer are we talking about me paying?
|
|
|
Post by ilovevolleyball on Apr 2, 2015 10:20:48 GMT -5
My DD's club tells everyone up front, no guaranteed playing time. There are kids who see the court only if the score is 20-10. The kids that do this know what they are getting and so do the parents. I'm probably on my own on this one, but club ball is supposed to be competitive and if she's not beating the other girls out her job is to be a good teammate and keep practicing hard.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Apr 2, 2015 10:25:01 GMT -5
Only in the context of a temporary injunction. A temporary injunction is a temporary remedy. Forcing the transfer is a permanent remedy. A judge has more authority to impose a temporary injunction than he/she would to force a transfer. A more reasonable interpretation is that the judge ruled that he did not have authority to impose a transfer, and therefore refused to order a temporary injunction. It's clear from the story that the lawsuit is continuing. But the family asked that the judge issue a temporary order that would allow the girl to transfer immediately, without waiting for the lawsuit to be ultimately decided. The judge declined to do that.
|
|
|
Post by vbprisoner on Apr 2, 2015 10:25:50 GMT -5
Below is the standard region rules regarding transfers. I am not sure if a region can alter the language. The hang-up was she participated in a competition thus negating the opportunity to transfer. By the club saying they release her and she can go find another team it tells me that the people running the club are clueless, or they knew what they were doing and did not want the player and parents there anymore.
ATHLETE/MEMBER TRANSFERS: Intra- regional transfers between junior indoor clubs will not be permitted during the current membership year once an athlete has represented a club in competition. An exception will be made for players whose teams have disbanded and the club has agreed to release them. Requests to participate with another club after the indoor sanctioned season has ended will be permitted provided all parties complete the post season transfer form. In all cases, the policies of the USA Volleyball Championship Manual will supersede region policy. Transfers requested prior to competition will be allowed only if the originating club has provided written documentation of a release.
|
|
|
Post by Orpheus on Apr 2, 2015 10:36:47 GMT -5
Your reasoning is spot on, but generally in a contract dispute, if there is a written document, then extrinsic evidence of additional terms, rights, or duties .................. If I am a parent and I am suing club/region etc............how much in fees to the lawyer are we talking about me paying? Haha A LOT. Litigation is costly for the most part. A general practice would be for an attorney to offer the parent a litigation plan and an estimate of time. The ultimate cost will be calculated by how expensive a particular attorney is.
|
|
|
Post by volleyguy on Apr 2, 2015 10:38:20 GMT -5
The articles paraphrases the judge as saying he didn't have authority to intervene. That was his ruling. Only in the context of a temporary injunction. It makes no sense for a judge to rule that they don't have "authority" to issue a temporary injunction. Judges have broad authority to issue temporary injunctions.
|
|
|
Post by bigfan on Apr 2, 2015 10:43:06 GMT -5
If I am a parent and I am suing club/region etc............how much in fees to the lawyer are we talking about me paying? Haha A LOT. Litigation is costly for the most part. A general practice would be for an attorney to offer the parent a litigation plan and an estimate of time. The ultimate cost will be calculated by how expensive a particular attorney is. Ball park figure? Do I agree before to give lets say a 30% cut of what I receive in damages? Lets say I lose and have hired a lawyer to do what is currently happening. Are we talking $20,000................less or a lot more that I owe said lawyer?
|
|