Quote:
Originally Posted by Resolute 14
Except that still has nothing to do with "the end of guaranteed contracts".
Also, and given it seems that "material breach" is well defined in contract law, I don't think there are many surprises waiting here in that regard. The union will almost certainly fight, naturally. But even if the Kings prevailed, it would probably only open the door to define specific actions related to drugs and/or arrests as valid for terminating a contract in this way.
|
Precisely.
I imagine that going forward any 'Contract Terminations' are going to have to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis thus mitigating any insane precedents.
When you look at all the facts (that we know of) in the Richards case I think it can be argued as warranted to terminate his contract.
If the Kings can argue that they had a viable trade lined up and Richards' actions negated that trade and deprived the Kings of cap-space and assets then they can probably win this.
Nothing to do with the drugs or potential arrest or anything like that, the Kings had the opportunity to move his contract and his actions directly nullified that opportunity.
If they didnt have a case the League wouldnt have rubber-stamped it damned near immediately and the PA would be screaming their lungs out to anyone who would listen.