#1 Threat to the Miami Dolphins

[Mach2]

This is 100% incorrect. If I contract with you to pay you $10 a week to post on this message board - guaranteed money or not - and I then, without your agreement outside of any rights established in the contract, say "I am not paying you $10 a week to post on this message board and you are free to post elsewhere but you will not be posting here" irrespective of whether I can or not legally, I have unilaterally terminated the contract. This a is common and simple idea under contract law.

Now you are just being obtuse.

In your example, I would then have legal recourse to remedy any damages incurred by the contract breach, whether that be by arbitration, or lawsuit.

Do you see a lot of that with players/teams?

The answer is no, because teams do not unilaterally break contracts. If they did, teams would be sued on a regular basis.

 

[Mnchstrcityblues79]

Now you are just being obtuse.

In your example, I would then have legal recourse to remedy any damages incurred by the contract breach, whether that be by arbitration, or lawsuit.

Do you see a lot of that with players/teams?

The answer is no, because teams do not unilaterally break contracts. If they did, teams would be sued on a regular basis.

Look, dude. You are talking about two separate things. Legal recourse verses what is unilateral termination. I explained to you what the latter is and previous I quoted an actual section of the actual agreement that EXPLICITLY allows for unilateral termination. You seem to want to believe that "unilateral termination" is the same as breach of contract or other offense against contract law, generally, or against the CBA, specifically. It is not generally and is most definitely not specifically in light of the actual contents of the CBA.

Stop arguing for arguments sake.

 

[Mach2]

Look, dude. You are talking about two separate things. Legal recourse verses what is unilateral termination. I explained to you what the latter is and previous I quoted an actual section of the actual agreement that EXPLICITLY allows for unilateral termination. You seem to want to believe that "unilateral termination" is the same as breach of contract or other offense against contract law, generally, or against the CBA, specifically. It is not generally and is most definitely not specifically in light of the actual contents of the CBA.

Stop arguing for arguments sake.

 

[Mnchstrcityblues79]

Its not arguing for argument sake if one person is wrong (as in the actual terms of the discussion, I don't mean mere difference of opinion). There is no point in discussion if we are essentially speaking a different language.

 

[timmash44]

Its not arguing for argument sake if one person is wrong (as in the actual terms of the discussion, I don't mean mere difference of opinion). There is no point in discussion if we are essentially speaking a different language.