- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Ed O'Bannon lawsuit strikes another blow -SIAP
Posted on 5/10/13 at 11:24 pm to SlowFlowPro
Posted on 5/10/13 at 11:24 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
f a person is capable of contracting, he's capable of contracting
When you pull up to a parking garage and press the button to get your ticket, do you then read the terms and conditions on the back of the ticket?
quote:
there is pretty strong caselaw that these contracts are fully enforceable.
Not if they're deemed unconscionable, which is...
quote:
an absence of meaningful choice on the part of one of the parties together with contract terms which are unreasonably favorable to the other party.
1
Posted on 5/10/13 at 11:28 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
and that's what would happen. everybody loses (especially women's sports)
EA will think of something.
quote:
the players are still receiving money for their likeness, which makes them ineligible
Nike can't pay a player to endorse Nike and get around teh rules by putting the money in a trust
Only because that's what the rules way. You can write the rules however you want.
College tennis players, for example, can play pro tournaments, and if they win prize money they can use it towards expenses.
ETA: I should also note that the nike endorsement example is a different situation than the EA likeness example at least because the college player has a choice of whether to sign an endorsement deal with nike. It's their decision.
This post was edited on 5/10/13 at 11:30 pm
Posted on 5/10/13 at 11:29 pm to bobbyray21
quote:
When you pull up to a parking garage and press the button to get your ticket, do you then read the terms and conditions on the back of the ticket?
no but that's a risk i take, and i know i'm taking a risk in doing so. a court shouldn't eliminate that risk and reward my laziness
quote:
Not if they're deemed unconscionable, which is...
another completely bullshite concept created in the judicially active 60s
if you can contract, you can contract
this is on the same shitty level as "consumer protection" laws
Posted on 5/10/13 at 11:30 pm to bobbyray21
quote:
Only because that's what the rules way. You can write the rules however you want.
why would the NCAA change their rules?
those rules have NOTHING to do with the NCAA selling players' rights, either.
quote:
College tennis players, for example, can play pro tournaments, and if they win prize money they can use it towards expenses.
but only expenses. they can't profit from the winnings. income is profit
Posted on 5/10/13 at 11:32 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
no but that's a risk i take, and i know i'm taking a risk in doing so. a court shouldn't eliminate that risk and reward my laziness
Okay, what if on the back of that parking ticket it says "in the event that the vehicle is not removed from the premises by 8pm, the driver will be sodomized". And then you roll out of work at 8:05pm.
You wanna have that enforced?
Posted on 5/10/13 at 11:33 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
why would the NCAA change their rules?
To preserve themselves.
Posted on 5/10/13 at 11:34 pm to bobbyray21
quote:
what if on the back of that parking ticket it says "in the event that the vehicle is not removed from the premises by 8pm, the driver will be sodomized"
well that would be a form of rape/prostitution, which wouldn't fly for another set of laws
but i doubt a business with a similar shitty policy would stay in market very long. that's why markets = good. you can only subject customers to shitty terms so many times before word gets out and your business fails
judicial activism like creating stupid concepts like "adhesion" or "unconscionability" disrupt markets
This post was edited on 5/10/13 at 11:35 pm
Posted on 5/10/13 at 11:35 pm to bobbyray21
quote:
To preserve themselves.
you think they're going to open pandora's box in order to push a system (each player negotiating his own likeness contract) that cannot work in reality?
Posted on 5/10/13 at 11:37 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
another completely bullshite concept created in the judicially active 60s
if you can contract, you can contract
It's not a bullshite concept at all. Some cases applying this theory have been bullshite, but it doesn't mean the concept is BS.
The way I view it is that it's completely consistent with the very non-bullshite rule that contract formation requires a meeting of the minds..
Posted on 5/10/13 at 11:40 pm to bobbyray21
quote:
Some cases applying this theory have been bullshite, but it doesn't mean the concept is BS.
it is BS
you either can agree to a contract or you can't
quote:
contract formation requires a meeting of the minds..
this is an impossibility and mostly an academic concept, but at the same time, this is ignored b/c the person claiming the personal defect never has to give back for the benefits it has already received
for example, in this case, is ed o'bannon goign to have to pay back his tuition, fees, food, apparel worn, and the economic advantages he gained as a result of this contract? i mean if there was no meeting of the minds, then he has to give up everything he received too, right?
Posted on 5/10/13 at 11:40 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
but i doubt a business with a similar shitty policy would stay in market very long. that's why markets = good. you can only subject customers to shitty terms so many times before word gets out and your business fails
Don't deflect. It's a hypo.
You roll up at 8:05, and Jed in the ticket booth is unbuttoning his pants. You're like "no, I didn't read the back of the ticket". Jed replies: "well who the hell wouldn't read the damn terms on the back of the ticket. Pull down them drawers boy. You agreed."
Contract law should allow Jed to frick you in the arse right there in the parking garage?
Posted on 5/10/13 at 11:41 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
for example, in this case, is ed o'bannon goign to have to pay back his tuition, fees, food, apparel worn, and the economic advantages he gained as a result of this contract? i mean if there was no meeting of the minds, then he has to give up everything he received too, right?
How much do you know about the UCC?
Posted on 5/10/13 at 11:43 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
it is BS
you either can agree to a contract or you can't
Not when the practical reality of it is that you never did -- and nobody reasonably would -- know what you were agreeing to.
See parking garage sodomization hypo.
Posted on 5/10/13 at 11:45 pm to bobbyray21
quote:
Don't deflect. It's a hypo.
i'm not deflecting
my trust in the market is why i typically don't read every word of every contract i agree to. a reputable business won't offer bullshite terms, typically. otherwise they won't last long. it's a market regulation
quote:
Contract law should allow Jed to frick you in the arse right there in the parking garage?
like i said you're getting into criminal, not contract, law here. but let's say there was a huge penalty...yes
and nobody would ever shop there and that store would close, and no other garage would do the same thing
Posted on 5/10/13 at 11:46 pm to bobbyray21
quote:
How much do you know about the UCC?
i used to know the details a lot moreso
but you're talking about undoing the entire contract because there was no meeting of the minds. that means both parties should have to repay their benefits of the contract
Posted on 5/10/13 at 11:47 pm to bobbyray21
quote:
Not when the practical reality of it is that you never did -- and nobody reasonably would -- know what you were agreeing to.
that's the risk you take agreeing to a contract you didn't fully understand. contracts are a grouping of risks and advantages
Posted on 5/10/13 at 11:51 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
like i said you're getting into criminal, not contract, law here. but let's say there was a huge penalty...yes
and nobody would ever shop there and that store would close, and no other garage would do the same thing
Take criminal out of your brain. Focus on the contract hypo. We're in civil court here.
The ticket said if you don't leave by 8pm, then you are agreeing to have consenual anal intercourse with Jed. You are agreeing to bend over the hood, drop the drawers, and let Jed go to town.
And you're saying that you're completely cool with this being legally enforceable, and your reasoning is that "it wouldn't happen because the market would correct for it".
Well, okay. I disagree.
Posted on 5/10/13 at 11:53 pm to bobbyray21
quote:
Focus on the contract hypo. We're in civil court here.
you're creating a hypothetical that literally could not exist in reality, in a country of laws it's a worthless hypothet that deserves no response accordingly
Posted on 5/10/13 at 11:57 pm to SlowFlowPro
*ETA: i just looked it up and specific performance would not be allowed in this circumstance via the UCC anyway
Posted on 5/10/13 at 11:58 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
that's the risk you take agreeing to a contract you didn't fully understand. contracts are a grouping of risks and advantages
Your view of contract law is pretty silly. The reason I asked what you knew about the UCC is because (a) US business couldn't function without it, and (b) the rules contained therein contradict everything you've said. Price and quantity terms are all that have to be agreed upon for contract formation. Because this the big stuff. This is the stuff people are considering when they make a decision whether to enter into a contract. The other stuff -- like the stuff that would be covered by boilerplate language -- can be figured out later either by the parties or by the courts.
And the UCC owes its existence to the fact that if nonsense statements like "that's the risk you take agreeing to a contract you didn't fully understand." were actually the law of the land, then business could never be efficiently conducted.
In short, your view of contract law was recognized as ridiculous a long long time ago.
Page 4 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News