Quote:
Originally posted by <b>jstempi</b>!
How bout a link?
|
No....how bout you link me. You are the one who came in flying out of left field arguing that I was wrong. You prove me wrong.
Quote:
|
That was not a written amendment in the contract and would have only been a verbal gentleman's agreement...not legally enforcable if you didn't know. Such as the alleged agreement Kobe would have with the Clippers to play some games at the Pond in Aneheim or the alleged "agreement" Shaq had with the Lakers for the extension he wanted if he got GP and Malone to come to the Lakers.
|
LOL the first two have no connection to the third one. No....you're wrong. It would be a REAL agreement, enforceable. What is the appoint to agreeing to anything that isn't enforceable. That sounds weaker than a promisory estoppel-type promise
Quote:
Exactly, your assertion is not logical because although remotely possible it would never happen, therefore it cannot happen. And what are you crying to the mods for? I am simply using an exaggerative story to help you understand. No where did I say you were an alien. Quit trying to whine to the mods to get them to edit me because it isnt warranted. You are not an alien and I am not attacking you by calling you one. Learn to read
Additionally, I did not initiate you. I responded to jokeaward and then you responded to me, so you "initiated" me.
|
Post 94 sir. Before it I told you you were wrong. I did not initiate you beyond that. You respond with "guess you must have failed contracts"
Once again you're failing to see logic. Would it ever happen? I doubt it. Would it be possible IF it were within the will of both Kobe and Sterling? Of course. I however disagree with Jokeaward because I do not believe it to be within the will of those two. Therefore under the present circumstances it lacks to condition precedent to be possible.
Why not go to the mods. The second thing you said to me was:
"Well, then I guess you'll have to spend your inheritance elsewhere and go without."
This before I ever said anything besides "you are wrong"....I fail to see how "you are wrong" justifies two attacks like the ones just stated.
Quote:
Too bad you cant provide evidence for your assertions and I have. Does that work in law school"
*edited*
|
Wow this is brilliant...except you missed this:
[b]Ahhhh you have no idea how contracts work. If it doesn't offend a gap filler you're fine. Sterling could, thought I don't know why he would, agree to pay Kobe and the alternative performance could be Kobe going to prison. Bargained for Legal Detriment? Section 71 and 81 of the restatement of contract......
I Donald Sterling could promise to pay you Kobe Bryant, and you Kobe bryant could promise that you will perform by either playing or going to prison and filling out token paperwork for Sterling (in effect being Sterling's secretary).
[1] Did the promisee
[a] Do something not previously obligated to do; OR
[b] Refrain from something previously privileged to do
AND
[2] Did the
[a] Promise induce the detriment
Detriment induce the promise
Analyze the second of TWO ALTERNATIVE PERFORMANCE CONSENTED TO BY DONALD STERLING.
1a. Kobe would be obligated to go to prison separate of sterling, but he would not be obligated to fill out sterling's paperwork
2a. Sterling's promise to pay Kobe even if he goes to prison would be induced by Bryant's detriment of filling out the paperwork, but more importantly induced by Bryant's willingness to engage in the agreement at all
2b. The detriment of Bryant promising filling out the paperwork, if he should happen to go to prison, so that the deal could go through would induce Sterling's promise since Kobe would be in effect saying NO DEAL UNLESS YOU AGREE TO PAY ME EVEN IN PRISON
But you, in your insulting fashion, never asked me for particulars. Of course Kobe can't perform his basketball obligations by going to prison. But you can have the freedom to contract almost anything. You show me a provision of the CBA that says that owners cannot further facilitate the signing of an "at-risk" player by promising to have another possible performance in case the risk becomes reality.
Am I saying they did agree to this? NO! Someone else said that. I'm saying they COULD if they wanted to. They could agree to alternative performances, with the particular performance triggered by a condition precedent (Kobe going to prison) and the promises would not be illusory, and there would be mutuality of obligation.
This would be an "argument".....I didn't merely tell you you were wrong. I typed a rather eloquent and well thought out argument to back up my claim. Ironic that this post was the one you didn't quote isn't it?
Quote:
Sterling is not gonna do favors for a particular team. Get over it.
*edited*
|
What are you talking about? What other team would be involved. I was talking about something he'd do to get Kobe to sign with the CLIPPERS.....not another team. Where do you get another team?