Quote:
Originally Posted by iggy_oi
It should be more than enough to see the case through, if it weren’t the players would have likely given in to the owners’ demands. Also I don’t know if you want to be arguing that the owners have so much money that they’ll win their case by bankrupting the PA with litigation when you’re also trying to get everyone to empathize with their position that the players should be paid less than what the owners agreed to. Just my 2 cents.
The league is going to have a hard time using force majeure as their defence when they literally predicted this outcome during their negotiations. I think it’s possible you’re not as familiar with all the facts of this case or the textbook definition of force majeure as you may think you are.
A global pandemic is something that in most cases could easily be used to void a contract with a force majeure clause, but that is not likely in a case where the contract was negotiated specifically to deal with the fallout of said pandemic.
|
I don't even agree with that. Force majeure clauses are based on
impossibility (not difficulty or unprofitability) of performance of one's contractual obligations (in addition to, as you rightly point out, such impossibility being due to unexpected and beyond reasonable human foresight and skill). Is it impossible for the NHL to fulfill its contractual obligation to have a 2020-21 season? That probably depends on the specific CA language which describes the obligation. However, I suspect it will be a very tough case to make for the NHL.