Now I only go back about 40 years in the profession – but IMO – there is rarely such a thing as a “black and white”/open and shut case when it comes to major contracts. Way too many “interpretations”, and way too many high paid lawyers to render their omnipotent opinions.

Somebody is always bitching about what was or was not included, the “plain meaning”, the intent of the parties, yada yada yada.

Goodell is one sneaky dude. I don’t think I’ve seen a commissioner that is so divisive.

The NFLPA is using Article 3 section B to state the Saints players shouldn’t be punished for actions prior to the CBA

and

The NFL is using Article 3 section A to state the NFL shouldn’t be punished for collusion prior to the CBA.

– Maybe article 3 should just be removed now from the CBA.

If so, this seems to likely backfire on the players.

As an attorney, I won on the EXACT issue that the NFLPA will be arguing.

The operative words in a release such as this are “waiver of claims now known OR UNKNOWN”. I don’t see the “OR UNKNOWN” part in the clause.

The fact that this language is not in there but the NFLPA waived a crap load of other claims would lead a reasonable reader to fairly presume that the NFLPA intended to only release those claims that are specifically enumerated. In fact, with the months of bargaining that took place, it’s also fair to presume that the NFLPA expressly kept their “unknown” collusion claim. As long as they can prove the claim was “unknown”, they will succeed. Surely, they will survive summary judgment and the case will proceed through discovery which the NFL MUST AVOID!

What also supports the NFLPA is that there were teams of lawyers on both sides that prepared the agreement. If the NFL wanted unknown claims waived, it would have inserted that language and the NFL cannot now claim, “well…that’s what we meant”.

————————————————–

I’m a lawyer too; we’d have fun arguing this matter on oral arguments.

Firstly, the ‘Four Corners’ doctrine cuts against your argument. While it doesn’t specify ‘unknown’ errors, it also doesn’t specify ‘known’ errors. What it does specify is “any antitrust or other claim asserted in White v. NFL or Brady v. NFL, including, without limitation…”.

“Any claim, without limitation”, encompasses both known and unknown claims. Had it simply stated ‘known’ claims, I would agree with your position, but as written, it’s inconsistent with the text.

As the NFL will surely agree with what I believe to be the plain and literal meaning of the agreement, the NFLPA is effectively attempting to argue a unilateral mistake, which I predict the NFLPA will ultimately be held responsible for.

Kessler is the epitome of ‘why we hate lawyers’.

I would agree with that characterization as to Smith, but how so Goodell? He crushed the union soundly at every step and the league is more popular and successful than it has ever been. I get that some fans don’t care for him (especially NO, Dal and DC), but objectively speaking he has destroyed smith on any board you want to reference.

The problem is that courts generally read these waiver clauses pretty strictly against the party who benefits from the waiver. You have to expressly provide for each type of claim to be waived. Some jurisdictions have case law supporting that you have to state that unknown/undiscovered claims are waived.

jakek2 assumes that Doty has caselaw in his jurisdiction that backs up the reasoning jakek2 used in his argument. However, this can vary by jurisdiction, and federal courts often have mandatory authority which differs by circuit.

Clearly the two sides wanted to play the 2011 season, but there are other issues the sides seem to want to continue to litigate.

This language is not “mumbo jumbo”. It’s language that basically starts the parties with a clean slate from the date of the agreement.

If you were hit by a fed-ex truck, they wouldn’t pay you a cent unless this language was in their release because they wouldn’t want you coming back in 5 years asserting a claim for a brain hemorrage that just manifested itself. Same thing here. The fact that the language is missing has several legal consequences.

Nothing shady or unethical about it. It’s capitalistic bargaining at its best. Isn’t that what folks like you are always clamoring for??

The operative words in a release such as this are “waiver of claims now known OR UNKNOWN”. I don’t see the “OR UNKNOWN” part in the clause.
~~~~~~~~~~~
Funny, I didn’t notice the part where the league used the term “known” either. It simply lists the circumstances under which the NFLPA cannot sue…and what they are suing is a verbatim example of what is listed. There may be some legal technicality mumbo jumbo that you can point to but common sense says the NFLPA is doing something they legally agreed not to do. No matter how you cut it, it still is shady, unethical and lacks integrity–but it is driven by lawyers so…

I wish these BS claims could be mitigated simply by making any party AND their lawyers responsible for all court AND defense costs (including reasonable/average legal fees) for frivolous suits. There would be a lot fewer legal suits if the lawyers were on the hook as well for wasting everybody’s time with a frivolous lawsuit.

The operative words in a release such as this are “waiver of claims now known OR UNKNOWN”. I don’t see the “OR UNKNOWN” part in the clause.

The fact that this language is not in there but the NFLPA waived a crap load of other claims would lead a reasonable reader to fairly presume that the NFLPA intended to only release those claims that are specifically enumerated. In fact, with the months of bargaining that took place, it’s also fair to presume that the NFLPA expressly kept their “unknown” collusion claim. As long as they can prove the claim was “unknown”, they will succeed. Surely, they will survive summary judgment and the case will proceed through discovery which the NFL MUST AVOID!

What also supports the NFLPA is that there were teams of lawyers on both sides that prepared the agreement. If the NFL wanted unknown claims waived, it would have inserted that language and the NFL cannot now claim, “well…that’s what we meant”.

There Judge Doty….I just saved you 4 months worth of work. To the pro-owner yahoos….sorry to whizz in your corn flakes.

As always, the only “winners” here will be the lawyers… But what else would you expect when the head of thr NFLPA was a lawyer. Its in his blood to sue for everything… What a shame…

It then goes on to say:

“OR” any [other] claim that could have been asserted in White or Brady.

The ‘asserted’ line isn’t a condition of the previous exclusions, it’s an additional type of suit above and beyond collusion. If the NFL could prove that a claim COULD have been part of the White/Brady claim, it’s not allowed.

TLDR version: This is just stupid politics.

“This is exactly what happened here, as the meetings to curtail spending happened secretly and illegally without NFLPA knowledge.”

And you know this how?

No chance of PA with Mara out there.

Mara came into this world naked. He inherited everything he’s ever gotten.

____________________________

John Mara went to college and law school. He spent 12 years practicing law before joining the Giants. It’s not like he’s Tommy Boy.

Not to mention, he’s darn good at his job, as evidenced by the two Lombardis won under his watch (he took over in 2005).

You don’t choose the family you are born into, but you can determine how you build upon your birthright.