Quote:
Originally Posted by GioforPM
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.
|
Not being a lawyer, I would assume that you are 100% correct here. However, the NHL is governed differently than society governs itself, and many of the rules in place contradict existing laws in society. I do believe that the NHL would not allow an ambiguous statement published in a hastily drawn-up MOU to negatively impact one of its' 30 members to the point that the organization's fan-base would revolt and the organization would be denigrated publicly. I just don't see it, and I believe this is why Daly took a giant step back from his initial comments.
Of course in the real world outside of a league with its' own rule of law (so to speak), your advice is the sound one.