Quote:
Originally Posted by Locke
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.
|
An outright inablity to play at all, would be the best argument they have. Nixing a trade? I'm not sure even that would suffice. Ifa trade was conditional on a physical and he failed the physical, they cuoldn't terminate.
A fundamental breach is not just a "serious" breach - it essentially a breach which deprives the pther party of any benefit from the contract. Even if not tradeworthy, Richards is still able to play and provide the services under the contract.
BTW, I know I'm saying "fundamental" and not "material". Fundamental is the word the courts use (at least in Canada). Neither word appears in the SPC, which doesn't define any kind of breach (nor does it mention termination at all).