Quote:
Originally Posted by iggy_oi
While I don’t fault the author for having an “unpopular” take, even if I don’t agree with it.
https://twitter.com/user/status/1332719155955572737
I have a hard time taking their opinions seriously when they flip flop and defend the opposing position the very next day:
https://twitter.com/user/status/1333084955317067782
The author’s wishy washy approach aside, the article you linked does little to answer my question of what has actually changed. No fans in the buildings is not a change from the summer, the same as any other of the league’s projections would not have been considered as changes from the summer.
But if you’re interested in reading more of Macramalla’s Twitter feed he does explain a few other details relating to this matter that he neglected to include in his article. Things like how the league not going ahead with the season would probably be ruled an illegal lockout in court. Geez I wonder if the NHLPA would take the league to court for not honouring its members’ guaranteed contracts through an illegal action?  |
Most contracts I have seen, and I have to presume this one, have force majeure clauses
It is reasonable to believe that the parties can not reasonably forecast the near to mid term effects of the pandemic, so their obligations may well be relieved, temporarily, and they have to align on a workable interim solution that allows them to work together until circumstances reflect the assumed parameters providing context for the agreement