JoeRedskin
01-08-2013, 10:49 AM
Maybe Judges view it differently for an entity like the NFLPA because they have big boy lawyers themselves. But, the concept of "Signing your rights away" is not recognized by the courts. People have been bullied into doing just that plenty of times only to have the Judge claim "Signed under duress" and throw that clause out.
Yes, contracts entered into under duress can be voided, if a party demonstrates the duress. The players, however, did not enter the new CBA under duress but after much, very public, arms length negotiations. It is the contract terms of the new CBA, negotiated by the NFLPA, that provided the basis for the dismissal.
And, BTW, you can absolutely "sign your rights away", if you do so through the lack of due diligence. If you were pressured, but you could have found out the facts, well too bad, so sad.
Second, the NFLPA has no right to make collusion for its negotiating partner legal. Thats completely up to the Govt at this point.
Huh? The NFLPA sued for breach of the prior CBA. The NFL said the new CBA pre-empted the old CBA and, as part of that new agreement, you (the NFLPA) agreed not to sue us for any breaches of the old CBA. The govt. wasn't a party to either. It's essentially a breach of contract action.
I dont see it going anywhere since the Govt wont take on the NFL, but that has nothing to do with the NFLPA signing its rights away and the NFL/NFLPA claiming to have jurisdiction on the Constitution of the USA with a claim of what they deem as legal even though its not through a clause in the CBA.
Well, it's not going anywhere b/c J. Doty deemed, essentially, that there was no breach of a contract term. As to the rest, you just lost me - the Constitution has nothing to do with this action. Further, there is nothing illegal about a waiver clause. They are, in fact, common in any settlement agreement. It is practically unheard of to enter into a settlment agreement without such a waiver. No client of mine would ever sign a settlement agreement that didn't have such a clause.
For the record, I think collusion occurred and that the NFL didn't disclose it prior to signing the new CBA. None of that, however, effects the correctness of J. Doty's dismissal.
Yes, contracts entered into under duress can be voided, if a party demonstrates the duress. The players, however, did not enter the new CBA under duress but after much, very public, arms length negotiations. It is the contract terms of the new CBA, negotiated by the NFLPA, that provided the basis for the dismissal.
And, BTW, you can absolutely "sign your rights away", if you do so through the lack of due diligence. If you were pressured, but you could have found out the facts, well too bad, so sad.
Second, the NFLPA has no right to make collusion for its negotiating partner legal. Thats completely up to the Govt at this point.
Huh? The NFLPA sued for breach of the prior CBA. The NFL said the new CBA pre-empted the old CBA and, as part of that new agreement, you (the NFLPA) agreed not to sue us for any breaches of the old CBA. The govt. wasn't a party to either. It's essentially a breach of contract action.
I dont see it going anywhere since the Govt wont take on the NFL, but that has nothing to do with the NFLPA signing its rights away and the NFL/NFLPA claiming to have jurisdiction on the Constitution of the USA with a claim of what they deem as legal even though its not through a clause in the CBA.
Well, it's not going anywhere b/c J. Doty deemed, essentially, that there was no breach of a contract term. As to the rest, you just lost me - the Constitution has nothing to do with this action. Further, there is nothing illegal about a waiver clause. They are, in fact, common in any settlement agreement. It is practically unheard of to enter into a settlment agreement without such a waiver. No client of mine would ever sign a settlement agreement that didn't have such a clause.
For the record, I think collusion occurred and that the NFL didn't disclose it prior to signing the new CBA. None of that, however, effects the correctness of J. Doty's dismissal.