Breaking: OM BRADY BEATS NFL IN "DEFLATEGATE"(Shortened)

FoxNews.com ^ | September 3, 2015 | Foxnews.Com

[Biggirl]

Breaking.

[Impy]

I'm pleasantly surprised, a federal judge without his head up his *ss? And he's a Clinton appointee to boot. Kommiasar Goodheel say he intends to whine to the appellate court but isn't asking for a stay of the decision.

[Impy]

[Mr Rogers]

The courts have authority in this. Why? Contract law. If you have a written contract that allows X to fine Y, but does not allow X to suspend Y, then doing the latter is a breach of contract. It then becomes a legal matter.

[Mr Rogers]

“Fair or unfair, the NFL should be able to conduct its own investigations and suspend players in the manner it sees fit.”

Not when the NFL has signed a contract saying it CANNOT do those things. Contracts are a part of the law.

[GOPsterinMA]

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[stephenjohnbanker]

Goodell should be sentenced to life, inflating footballs.

[pluvmantelo]

he just gave it away and now the ball is in the courts hands

---

I hope that ball is properly inflated.

[GOPsterinMA]

He blows, so why not?

[stephenjohnbanker]

LOL

[stephenjohnbanker]

I believe he was offered a full time job with Wilson Sporting Goods, inflating new footballs. Yeah, it is blue collar work, but a noble endeavor.

[GOPsterinMA]

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[stephenjohnbanker]

Thought you would like that one : )

[GOPsterinMA]

I do!!!

[veracious]

I understand what your saying and it does have some merit. However, the contracts are with a corporation, which defines the rules the contractees operate under. The rules (of this domain) include process for redress of grievances. It seems a violation of contract for an contractee to use an outside party to change something which is purely defined and owned by the domain.

[Impy]

How about he inflates balloons at kid's parties in next job as "Roggy the Clown"

[Mr Rogers]

“It seems a violation of contract for an contractee to use an outside party”

There are two sides that signed the contract. Why should one of the signers claim all right to interpret the contract?

The player’s union had the right to sue for breach of contract. The judge ruled the contact allowed for fines, but not for suspensions, and requires the NFL to comply with the contract they signed.

[stephenjohnbanker]

Wouldn’t it be nice if somehow this mope read this thread : )

[discostu]

It’s not a violation of anything, because in the end that’s a large part of what civil courts are for. A significant percentage of the cases that land in civil court involve 2 sides disagreeing on the meaning and application of a contract. And notice that the ruling was based on both previous legal cases involving the league AND results of their own arbitration and appeals process (Tagliabue’s throwing out of the suspension of players for not complying with the Bounty Gate suspension was specifically sited). He strongly encouraged them to find an agreement multiple times, they failed, so one way or the other he had to rule. The only question at that point is how would he rule.

[big'ol_freeper]

[veracious]

Interesting replies from a couple of folks, which I considered. Those having voluntarily joined the artificial entity (domain) called NFL, one has come under it's jurisdiction. Assuming the domain has rules, processes for judging violations and appeals thereof, then choosing to ignore the ruling of domain seems a breach of contract, disqualifying one from being in the domain.

It seems a dominion such as this is different from a normal business arrangement. In business contracts define work and materials to be exchanged. The NFL exists to play football. The way it is played and the regulation of penalties resulting from play appear to be within it's own jurisdiction.

I do not have any vested interest in this issue other than its legal ramifications.

Thank you for your time. I am now closed to replies on this subject.