Quote:
Originally Posted by Resolute 14
Don't get me wrong - my read on the document is the same as yours and Friedman's. But surely you realize how silly your post comes off when your response basically reads as "Bill Daly's comments are meaningless, Elliott Friedman's are not."
|
This is an equivocation. Elliotte has an opinion as to interpretation, which I share. Neither of our opinions are relevant, obviously, in determining the actual meaning of an NHL CBA clause. Daly's comments are "meaningless" (as I say too strong a word because extrinsic evidence is sometimes relevant) in terms of finding an answer to whether Elliotte, and others, are right or wrong, because his opinion doesn't govern either.
Basically what Friedman, you, I, or Daly thinks that clause reads is all meaningless from an interpretation perspective, but I happen to agree with Elliotte's interpretation.
Quote:
|
If Daly's alleged comment accurately reflected the theory that the league agreed that any team signing an RFA could do so without waivers in this situation, that would most definitely not be irrelevant.
|
It would be if a Court looked at the agreement and said, "no, my interpretation of what the words in the document say are that it means X". Legally, if you look at the words, and you can come to a conclusion as to what they mean on the basis just of what's in the agreement itself, you are not even
permitted to look at what the parties say they intended them to mean.
Quote:
Originally Posted by IamNotKenKing
Sorry, in my reading if it said "the" club's list, then it would have to be Colorado who signs him to be waiver exempt, by saying "a" club's list, anyone could sign him.
Contract Law 101
|
Standard lawyer argument on what the meaning of "is" is. "a" implies a singular team, and just as you could say they could've written "the" club's list (which first of all wouldn't have made grammatical sense), someone taking the opposite position would argue that they could have just as easily made it "any" club's list, if they'd wanted that to be the effect. Not saying you're necessarily wrong, though.