Quote:
Originally Posted by Calgary4LIfe
Replying to Oil Stain (window is blank when replying):
What was really to me about that situation was Bill Daly's remarks.
When he was first asked about it, he flatly stated that RoR would indeed have to pass through waivers if he was to play. However, a day or two later, his stance changed, and his statement was something more like "It would have to be reviewed". I believe it was because he wasn't fully versed in that particular clause which was unclear. If a clause is unclear or ambiguous (as the MOU was at the time), then a legitimate case can be made to disregard it.
I didn't like Feaster, and I was really glad he was gone. I think it was a mistake giving up the 1st for RoR then, I feel it was a mistake in hindsight, but I also do think that RoR would indeed have ended up a Flame and would not have had to pass through waivers. That MOU - the way it was written - was indeed ambiguous, and thus the change in chance from Bill Daly.
|
As a lawyer, I have to say, that is not good advice. If a clause is truly ambiguous or unclear, you assume the worst. A judge or arbitrator will decide what the intention of the parties (the League and the NHLPA) was on an objective basis. What I would never advise is that an ambiguous clause is disregarded, especially given the dire results if the preferred interpretation is incorrect. The clause has a meaning one way or another - ambiguity doesn't mean the clause has zero effect.