Jump to content
Pro Wrestling Only

Shining Wiz

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    597

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by Shining Wiz

  1. Shining Wiz

    Current WWE

    Shining Wiz replied to Smack2k's topic in WWE

    They surrendered their spots when the Germans showed up.
  2. Shining Wiz
    Sadly, I'm not trolling. I just appear to have unpopular opinions.
  3. Shining Wiz
    Here is where such a clause falls apart. Vince tells Bret to lose by pin fall. Bret says he'll lose by dq. They don't agree, so what happens? Really hard to enforce such a weird clause in a weird business. Then it doesn't happen. You don't enforce it by compelling action, you enforce it by prohibiting action. In effect, if Vince doesn't want this to happen he shouldn't put the title on Bret in Bret's last 30 days, otherwise he's at a legal standstill. I'm just thinking of a finish as a booking decision, not so much dropping the title. If one guy wants to do x, and one wants to do y, and they never agree, what use is the clause. Seems to me, by your reckoning, that reasonable control defaults essentially to near full control for Bret. And I think in practice you're probably right.
  4. Shining Wiz
    Here is where such a clause falls apart. Vince tells Bret to lose by pin fall. Bret says he'll lose by dq. They don't agree, so what happens? Really hard to enforce such a weird clause in a weird business.
  5. Shining Wiz
    Ladies and gentleman of the jury, have you reached a verdict? We have your honour. How say you? We, the jury, find for the plaintiff, Bret Hart. And have you decided on an award for damages? We have your honour. And how say you? For breach of contract, we award damages in the amount of $1. However, for being a whiny bugger, we take that dollar back.
  6. Shining Wiz
    Oh yeah....you guys use juries in civil trials. That's a crapshoot.
  7. Shining Wiz
    Why didn't Bret sue then if that was the case? I am actually curious about that... Also, if you breach a contract on the last day of the contract, and pay all monies owed, you haven't suffered any recoverable loss. Except Bret suffered expectation damages when his creative control was breached, whatever that may be. Is that quantifiable in any way? I have never, and doubt I ever will, run into such a situation.
  8. Shining Wiz
    Why didn't Bret sue then if that was the case? I am actually curious about that... Also, if you breach a contract on the last day of the contract, and pay all monies owed, you haven't suffered any recoverable loss.
  9. Shining Wiz
    Bret didn't treat the contract as having been breached. Instead, he was given written permission to negotiate with WCW, then gave 30 days notice. He was under contract with the WWF until a few days after Survivor Series.
  10. Shining Wiz
    We all have them....things we shouldn't like, but do for some reason. And the flip side - things that we probably should, but for whatever reason, just don't. Guilty pleasure - The Miz. Vast minority here, but I think he's an awesome heel, pardon the pun. I actually really enjoyed his title run and thought it ended too quickly. And he is nowhere near as bad in ring as people make out. He even managed to almost get Alex Freaking Riley over. Might be the shittiest good guy in wrestling history though. Guilty displeasure - Ric Flair. I will (and have) catch heat for this, but no. If for no other reason than the Flop and the run to the top rope for no other reason than to get pressed slammed, just no. I'm not saying all matches, but mostly just when Flair is either bored or disinterested. The matches with Steamboat and Funk are personal favourites, but overall......no. And promos....if Flair never touched a mic after A Flair for the Gold, I would have been aok with that. Anyone else?
  11. Shining Wiz
    Just saw the main event.....Cena took an ass kicking. You know it's bad when the crowd starts to feel sympathy for the heel in a match.
  12. Shining Wiz
    Bray can be part of good matches with really good wrestlers....Jericho may not fit that description anymore.
  13. Shining Wiz
    Ambrose/Rollins was really good. I like the fact they're stretching it out instead of blowing the whole thing in a month.
  14. Shining Wiz
    Possibly in the states....you guys love the punitive damages. If the suit were filed in Canada, not so much. Either way, there would be no (realistic) way to get damages for tv monitors up to what the remainder of the contract, had it been legally breached, was worth. You think Vince McMahon isn't getting that suit litigated in America and that an American court is going to choose Canadian law? I really wish we had a copy of it, then we could know for sure. The screw job and Bret's actions happened afterwards, sure, but the contract dispute and a counterclaim are coming if Bret sues on it. If there were a contract dispute, it would almost definitely be US based. I can't imagine their contract would be governed under anywhere but there. I'm unfamiliar with Connecticut's conflicts rules are though, so don't know if a suit regarding the damage to the monitors would be filed there as well. All of which is a moot point though obviously. Also, if Mcmahon's suggestion that the WWF wouldn't be able to keep paying the contract had been a breach, and Hart sued, we never would have had the screw job, so there would have been no bad actions by Bret to counter sue on.
  15. Shining Wiz
    If you're suggesting everyone was in on it, It's wrestling, so I assume everything is a storyline at some level. And this one seemed like making lemonade out of lemons on so many levels. But, you'd have to believe the truth about it would have come out by now. If you're suggesting McMahon was going to be a heel no matter how this played out, I'm with you 100%. I can't think of a better way of launching that though.
  16. Shining Wiz
    I'm just concerned Rogers will start blocking certain things that allow me to watch the real network. This tv deal sounds horrendous.
  17. Shining Wiz
    If that were true, it would be both. I would hope they have lawyers who would eat me alive. Unless you meant Steenalized was giving the good advice, in which case My ego and I will be over here trying not to look embarrassed.
  18. Shining Wiz
    Possibly in the states....you guys love the punitive damages. If the suit were filed in Canada, not so much. Either way, there would be no (realistic) way to get damages for tv monitors up to what the remainder of the contract, had it been legally breached, was worth.
  19. Shining Wiz
    If Bret had a $18 million dollar claim based in contract, and WWF counter sued for $500,000 for damaged equipment, that math comes out well in Bret's favour. Anything regarding the punch would be in separate proceedings, and wouldn't really have an effect on what was owed under the contract anyhow. But, since there was no breach, but rather Bret exercised his 'escape clause' nothing was owed under the contract.
  20. Shining Wiz
    My point being, you can tell someone you can't afford to pay them, there is no actual breach until you don't pay them. Had the contract been actually breached, then Bret would have been free to leave at any point, and I don't believe he was. I believe he gave notice that he was leaving on x date, and remained under contract until that point. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anticipatory_repudiation Luckily I didn't get my JD from Wikipedia. Here's the easiest way to tell that the contract wasn't breached - Bret never sued for damages. Why? Because he didn't suffer any. They came to an agreement to release both from the terms by allowing Bret to negotiate a deal with WCW while under contract with the WWF. Repudiation occurs when you flat out state you will not be honouring the terms of a contract. If McMahon tells him his contract is hoping to bankrupt the company, and gives him a chance to go find a better deal, the contract wasn't repudiated. Neither did I, but this isn't about dick waving. Bret didn't sue Vince for damages because litigation is a huge drain on time and money. Everyone knows this. Why sue Vince and probably have to sit out for years when he could just take the immediate, guaranteed cash? Could it be because one is clearly the better option? And, like Dylan pointed out, Bret sorta KO'd Vince. Vince told Bret "I cannot pay your contract." If XYZ Construction calls ABC Plumbing tomorrow and says "hey, we can't pay you what we said we would for the subcontract" do you really think that there wasn't an anticipatory repudiation? Vince was unequivocal in his refusal to pay Bret and honor the contract. "Reasonable creative control" is a messy term even if the parties did define it. That means if it all did go to litigation, that the court has to find a meaning to it, not drop it out and follow what Vince McMahon says. I don't know how he stated it because I wasn't there. If they said we're not paying you anymore, then I would agree with you. If they said if business doesn't pick up we're not going to be able to pay you soon, so go find a new deal if you want, then not a breach.
  21. Shining Wiz
    So if the contract was breached, why did they have to give him permission in writing to negotiate?
  22. Shining Wiz
    From the November 1997 Observer: Hart had an escape clause built into his contract since he had so much negotiating leverage when making his WWF deal 11 months earlier, in that he could leave the company giving 30 days notice, and that he would have what the contract called "reasonable creative control" of his character during that lame duck period so that he couldn't be unreasonably buried on the way out. There was a window period for giving that notice and negotiating elsewhere that hadn't begun, so McMahon, showing he was serious, gave Hart written permission to begin negotiating with WCW and Hart contacted Eric Bischoff.
  23. Shining Wiz
    That punch wouldn't come anywhere close to equalling the value of the contract, particularly where that occurred in Canada where punitive damages are nowhere near as common as in the US. Beside that point, you're saying the contract was breached a month before Montreal.
  24. Shining Wiz
    No, it doesn't, see the wiki article I linked above for easy access. If something requires both parties to agree to it and one declines, then the other party can't do it. Vince wanted Bret to drop the title in Montreal. Bret did not. Therefore, Bret's "reasonable creative control" means he can block Vince from having Bret drop the title in Montreal. The flip of this is, 'Bret says he'll vacate the title on Raw, but Vince doesn't agree". Then what happens? I'm saying it is a pretty hard to enforce contractual term.
  25. Shining Wiz
    My point being, you can tell someone you can't afford to pay them, there is no actual breach until you don't pay them. Had the contract been actually breached, then Bret would have been free to leave at any point, and I don't believe he was. I believe he gave notice that he was leaving on x date, and remained under contract until that point. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anticipatory_repudiation Luckily I didn't get my JD from Wikipedia. Here's the easiest way to tell that the contract wasn't breached - Bret never sued for damages. Why? Because he didn't suffer any. They came to an agreement to release both from the terms by allowing Bret to negotiate a deal with WCW while under contract with the WWF. Repudiation occurs when you flat out state you will not be honouring the terms of a contract. If McMahon tells him his contract is hoping to bankrupt the company, and gives him a chance to go find a better deal, the contract wasn't repudiated.
×
×
  • Create New...