Quote:
Originally Posted by GioforPM
A. There is a standard but it isn’t “well, your interpretation is reasonable”. In a contractual dispute you convince the judge that your interpretation is correct. Usually both sides have a reasonable argument.
B. Voiding the contract wasn’t an option. That would have been a totally made up result. Either waivers applied or they didn’t. “Bad look” wouldn’t have mattered. It wouldn’t be the first time an unintended result occurred from poor wording of a contract.
|
With all due respect, Gio, I disagree with you on this.
The NHL can do whatever it wants, frankly, and in this instance, I believe at worst they would have voided the contract if Colorado did not match.
Again, it is all moot and speculation in any event, and, again, with all due respect, you have not "shown" anything. You have argued your position.
Feaster's interpretation was correct by the strict, plain reading, which, as you are of course aware, is a standard used.
The fact they fixed it in the actual CBA supports this.