Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Contracts Question--Please help a Law student

Posted on 09/10/2007 12:14:52 PM PDT by raseth

How does renegotiation of contracts not fall under consideration? How do athletes, etc., get away with renegotiating the contract and why do the institutions not sue for the first contract agreed upon?


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Reference
KEYWORDS: consideration; contracts; law
I am a 1L and am looking for an answer to a question that our contracts prof posed today but refused to give us his thoughts on: Suppose someone promised $10mil to someone and then said I'm only going to give you $9mil and not skip town. The person agrees but then sues and get's the extra million because it's consideration.

Now if a football player has a contract and then renegotiates for a higher salary, why does the same rule not apply? He agreed to the terms and now wants more money. I understand the "options contract" in Restatement 2d, but that's not law and only influences the court. why is it not consideration in the 2nd scenario but consideration in the first?

any help will be greatly appreciated!!!!

1 posted on 09/10/2007 12:14:54 PM PDT by raseth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: raseth

2 posted on 09/10/2007 12:17:55 PM PDT by Petronski (Cleveland Indians: Pennant -14)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: raseth
Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket
3 posted on 09/10/2007 12:18:42 PM PDT by JRios1968 (Faith is not believing that God can. It is knowing that God will. - Ben Stein)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: raseth

Would a 20pound weight be like 30 for a football player under contract?


4 posted on 09/10/2007 12:21:14 PM PDT by 1Old Pro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: raseth
And what I REALLY hate is when you're eating chips and dip and the chips keep breaking off in the dip.

That is so irritating, really.

(Psssst....hint: Contract Modifications. Legal and binding. Agreed to by both parties. Signed by both parties unless unilateral.)

5 posted on 09/10/2007 12:21:43 PM PDT by Allegra (Turning Vanity Threads Into New Socks Threads at Every Opportunity)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: raseth
"Mr. Raseth. If I have to give you the answer, you have learned nothing! "

"Wouldn't you be better suited for a Philosophy Major? "

6 posted on 09/10/2007 12:22:43 PM PDT by TexasCajun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: raseth

Welcome to FreeRepublic. FYI, you might receive more responses by asking your question on a legal forum of some type. There’s gotta be hundreds of good one’s out there.


7 posted on 09/10/2007 12:22:49 PM PDT by jdm
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jdm
FYI, you might receive more responses by asking your question on a legal forum of some type. There’s gotta be hundreds of good one’s out there.

Yeah, but this is more fun.

So, what color of socks do you have on today?

8 posted on 09/10/2007 12:26:14 PM PDT by Allegra (Turning Vanity Threads Into New Socks Threads at Every Opportunity)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: raseth
Contract renegotiation usually stems from the fact that one party has an ‘out’ clause. For example, Baseball player Joe Smith signs a contract with the London Sissypants. In Joe’s contract, he is given an out clause that lets him cancel the contract at any time for xx penalty. Now say Joe plays really well and the Manchester Kickasses want Joe on their team so they offer Joe a higher compensation that the out penalty is with the Sissypants. Joe can threaten to leave the Sissypants unless they beat the Kickasses’ offer. That is where the renegotiation happens, all by the book.
9 posted on 09/10/2007 12:26:55 PM PDT by mnehring (Thompson/Hunter '08- Time to have the real men in charge!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: raseth

This is part of the offer/acceptance/consideration triad. Legally, an offer to renegotiate an existing contract is an offer to negotiate a new contract.


10 posted on 09/10/2007 12:27:46 PM PDT by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: raseth
I am a 1L and am looking for an answer to a question that our contracts prof posed today but refused to give us his thoughts on: Suppose someone promised $10mil to someone and then said I'm only going to give you $9mil and not skip town. The person agrees but then sues and get's the extra million because it's consideration.

Now if a football player has a contract and then renegotiates for a higher salary, why does the same rule not apply? He agreed to the terms and now wants more money. I understand the "options contract" in Restatement 2d, but that's not law and only influences the court. why is it not consideration in the 2nd scenario but consideration in the first?

any help will be greatly appreciated!!!!

Before you spend time trying to put together a coherent response to your law professor's question, might I suggest that you brush up on the use of the English language? Your post is rambling and is full of spelling errors and grammatical mistakes. If your response to your professor's question is 100% accurate, but is written as poorly as your post, I would expect you to receive a "dressing down" from your professor. Better you get it from me, than from the person who will be grading your work.

11 posted on 09/10/2007 12:33:22 PM PDT by So Cal Rocket
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: raseth
Suppose someone promised $10mil to someone and then said I'm only going to give you $9mil and not skip town. The person agrees but then sues and get's the extra million because it's consideration.

Here, there is no consideration for the renegotiated price because there was no change in the agreed upon terms and performance has already been tendered. The promisee is simply entitled to the benefitof the deal.

A football player has a contract and then renegotiates for a higher salary.

Lets assume this is a two-year deal and the player refuses to perform for the second year. The player is in breach, which entitles the team to sue for breach. But the team cannot sue its way to a championship - so the deal is "renegotiated." This is either a repudiation and a new contract, which sets the "damages" for the repudiation, or a modification of the previous agreement. Either way, the parties have bargained for and reached agreement on a new contract with different terms - which is consideration.

12 posted on 09/10/2007 12:42:21 PM PDT by frithguild (The Freepers moved as a group, like a school of sharks sweeping toward an unaware and unarmed victim)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: So Cal Rocket
might I suggest that you brush up on the use of the English language

Here! Here!

“A clear and definite mind is a rarity; an artist in the use of words is as great a rarity.” See George M. Brewster & Son v. Catalytic Const. Co. 17 N.J. 20, 32 (N.J. 1955) quoting Corbin on Contracts, § 534.

13 posted on 09/10/2007 12:49:26 PM PDT by frithguild (The Freepers moved as a group, like a school of sharks sweeping toward an unaware and unarmed victim)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: raseth

I vaguley recall it having to do with this type of contract being essentailly a ‘personl services’ contract and that you are not selling something on the open market that just anyone can provide, it is their life.

If it turns out to be more valuable there is a clause for both barties to renegotiate- and both perties come in knowing the invitationt orenogotiate is open to both parties.

This is the same reason they can ‘cut’ someone and not be held accountable for the balance of the contract.

But hey, i’m no lawyer- i have class and dignity


14 posted on 09/10/2007 12:56:54 PM PDT by Mr. K (Some days even my lucky rocketship underpants don't help)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: raseth
I have seen 10mil coins used as tax.
Instead of rounding tax up to a penny!
15 posted on 09/10/2007 12:58:49 PM PDT by HuntsvilleTxVeteran (Remember the Alamo, Goliad and WACO, It is Time for a new San Jacinto)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: raseth

It’s too early in the semester. In discussing matters with friends of mine in the Marines, I realized that the first six weeks of law school is just like basic training. Never volunteer for anything. You don’t know enough to know what you don’t know. Your classmates—who you made look dumb or smart, based on the quality of your answer—are regardless waiting for you in the hallway after class with a bar of soap in a sock. (this is absolutely tongue in cheek-most profs value participation, but a good question to ask before raising your hand is: “Is what I’m about to say worth the attention of 95 other people and delaying the progress of class.” It’s also helpful to write down your question before you ask it or before you stop by the prof’s office.)

—You can’t answer this question without looking at the contract and without knowing if there are additional facts out there. Blackletter law is useless without the facts.

—As another poster noted, employment contracts can be “renegotiated” because of changed circumstances. Although subject to a negative injunction against working for another team, a player can always threaten not to play without additional pay. Damages in employment contracts are iffy for the employer and difficult to prove without a liquidated damages clause.

—Your first hypo is not consideration, it’s a pre-existing duty as you’ve explained it. See Alaska Packers v. Domenico (the fishing union case, a standard I remember from law school that appears in virtually every K casebook). In other words, if two parties agree to a contract and then one party demands more money for performing the terms of the contract, the purportedly modified contract is unenforceable for want of consideration. On the other hand, if the parties modify their respective performances—greater salary in exchange for an extra year of performance, for example—then it’s enforceable.


16 posted on 09/10/2007 1:40:58 PM PDT by FateAmenableToChange
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: raseth

Quit.

Now.

Turn back from law and run — don’t walk — run away as fast and as far as you can.


17 posted on 09/10/2007 2:00:45 PM PDT by BenLurkin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Allegra
So, what color of socks do you have on today?

None. They're all soaking in a basin. You know what the month of September is for.

Time to wash socks again!

18 posted on 09/10/2007 2:03:35 PM PDT by jdm
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: raseth

I signed a contract for a new beiber, but I kept getting stuned...think I have a case?


19 posted on 09/10/2007 2:07:07 PM PDT by Joe 6-pack (Que me amat, amet et canem meum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TexasCajun

LOL! I loved the movie and the show.


20 posted on 09/10/2007 4:11:27 PM PDT by buccaneer81 (Bob Taft has soiled the family name for the next century.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson