Quote:
Originally Posted by GioforPM
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).
|
There isn't any such thing as fundamental breach in Canada anymore since 2010.
A material breach generally just refers to a breach of a material term of an agreement, but could also refer to a materiality threshold. It's contextual and doesn't have a fixed meaning besides, generally speaking, "important".
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.
|
That's the point. If something is entirely fact-dependent (does this case rise to the standard? How about the next? And the next?) you never have any sort of certainty. That's the
exact problem I'm highlighting.
Quote:
|
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.
|
If so, I'll bet that every single year, multiple events will occur that will be similarly in the realm of "it can be argued as warranted".
Quote:
|
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.
|
Why on Earth do you think this?