Shining Wiz Posted August 16, 2014 Report Share Posted August 16, 2014 What is the big difference between saying "I refuse to honor the terms of your contract" and a breach of contract? It's a question of what actually happened. Say you have a contract with me, and I am supposed to pay you $100 every Monday. If, on Friday, I say I am going to be having problems paying you that in the future, but come Monday, I pay you $100, no breach. If I do not pay you, then there has been a breach. But, if you keep working for me, and I start paying you $75 a week, and you keep accepting this, this can be seen as a change of terms (this is very case dependent and by no means an iron clad comment, but a possibility). My point being, the contract may not have actually been breached. As I believe the WWF had to give Bret permission - in writing - to negotiate with WCW, then I would actually feel quite safe in saying the contract had not been breached. That is from a legal sense. No doubt that McMahon had morally breached their agreement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt D Posted August 16, 2014 Report Share Posted August 16, 2014 And Bret was fairly amiable about that. He agreed to it. He said "okay, if this is what you need to do to save your business. This is where I thought I'd spend the rest of my career. I don't want to leave, but..." Do we buy that? I kind of do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steenalized Posted August 16, 2014 Report Share Posted August 16, 2014 The creative control issue is completely and totally irrelevant to the matter of why Vince is wrong. Bret could be and may have been a delusional mark for himself, but that is also irrelevant. The bottom line is that Vince signed Bret to a contract, then told Bret "oops, I can't pay you, go ahead and go to WCW and take their money." Everything else is just excess, the real issue is that Vince signed Bret to a contract he reneged on. At that point he's lucky Bret didn't just walk out as champion Fair point. But did Vince actually breach the contract, or did he just tell Bret he couldn't afford it and that he could/should negotiate with WCW? And once Bret didn't just bugger off, I would still hold he was a douche for not just agreeing to drop the belt. Telling him he can't pay on the contract and to go talk to WCW is effectively a breach of contract. And Bret's contract specifically gave him reasonable creative control. Who was Bret to tell Vince what to do? He was a guy who had a contract with Vince that said he gets reasonable creative control, that's who. Allowing him to negotiate with a third party is not a breach. And, legally speaking, "reasonable creative control" is meaningless unless it was further defined in the contract. But it seems like Bret wanted closer to full creative control by dictating how/when he would or would not lose the title, and full control may not have been reasonable, Vince didn't just let him negotiate with WCW; Vince told Bret he was not going to honor his part of the contract. That's a repudiation and a breach. "Reasonable creative control" is not 'meaningless', though it can be a quagmire for future litigation. Thing is, "reasonable creative control" was defined as Bret and Vince having to agree to it. So it was defined. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dylan Waco Posted August 16, 2014 Report Share Posted August 16, 2014 I agree that Bret is at fault to the extent that as soon as Vince said he was going to renege on the agreed upon deal he should have left the promotion without working a single date Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shining Wiz Posted August 16, 2014 Report Share Posted August 16, 2014 Framing the debate as "allowing him to negotiate with a third party" is a stretch so massive Jerry McDevitt wouldn't even make it. Vince told Bret he would be breaching his contract. This literally occurred. He literally said to him "I cannot and will not hold up my end of the bargain." This isn't even disputed. At that point to then say "hey don't worry, he can go negotiate with these other guys" is irrelevant - he'd already told Bret he wasn't going to honor his deal and (at least arguably) hurt his position in terms of negotiations compared to where Bret had been the year prior when he actually was a free agent. 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steenalized Posted August 16, 2014 Report Share Posted August 16, 2014 Framing the debate as "allowing him to negotiate with a third party" is a stretch so massive Jerry McDevitt wouldn't even make it. Vince told Bret he would be breaching his contract. This literally occurred. He literally said to him "I cannot and will not hold up my end of the bargain." This isn't even disputed. At that point to then say "hey don't worry, he can go negotiate with these other guys" is irrelevant - he'd already told Bret he wasn't going to honor his deal and (at least arguably) hurt his position in terms of negotiations compared to where Bret had been the year prior when he actually was a free agent. 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shining Wiz Posted August 16, 2014 Report Share Posted August 16, 2014 The creative control issue is completely and totally irrelevant to the matter of why Vince is wrong. Bret could be and may have been a delusional mark for himself, but that is also irrelevant. The bottom line is that Vince signed Bret to a contract, then told Bret "oops, I can't pay you, go ahead and go to WCW and take their money." Everything else is just excess, the real issue is that Vince signed Bret to a contract he reneged on. At that point he's lucky Bret didn't just walk out as champion Fair point. But did Vince actually breach the contract, or did he just tell Bret he couldn't afford it and that he could/should negotiate with WCW? And once Bret didn't just bugger off, I would still hold he was a douche for not just agreeing to drop the belt. Telling him he can't pay on the contract and to go talk to WCW is effectively a breach of contract. And Bret's contract specifically gave him reasonable creative control. Who was Bret to tell Vince what to do? He was a guy who had a contract with Vince that said he gets reasonable creative control, that's who. Allowing him to negotiate with a third party is not a breach. And, legally speaking, "reasonable creative control" is meaningless unless it was further defined in the contract. But it seems like Bret wanted closer to full creative control by dictating how/when he would or would not lose the title, and full control may not have been reasonable, Vince didn't just let him negotiate with WCW; Vince told Bret he was not going to honor his part of the contract. That's a repudiation and a breach. "Reasonable creative control" is not 'meaningless', though it can be a quagmire for future litigation. Thing is, "reasonable creative control" was defined as Bret and Vince having to agree to it. So it was defined. Depends on what he said, what he did and what they agreed to whether it really was a repudiation and a breach. Unless they actually stopped paying the contract, then it was not breached. And if they agreed to tare up that contract and operate under a new agreement, then this is a null point. And yes, I shouldn't have said reasonable creative control is meaningless, but rather incredibly vague. And the idea that it meant whatever they agreed on May actually have rendered it meaningless as what would happen if they didn't agree? Nothing would happen? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steenalized Posted August 16, 2014 Report Share Posted August 16, 2014 Depends on what he said, what he did and what they agreed to whether it really was a repudiation and a breach. Unless they actually stopped paying the contract, then it was not breached. And if they agreed to tare up that contract and operate under a new agreement, then this is a null point. And yes, I shouldn't have said reasonable creative control is meaningless, but rather incredibly vague. And the idea that it meant whatever they agreed on May actually have rendered it meaningless as what would happen if they didn't agree? Nothing would happen? 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shining Wiz Posted August 16, 2014 Report Share Posted August 16, 2014 Framing the debate as "allowing him to negotiate with a third party" is a stretch so massive Jerry McDevitt wouldn't even make it. Vince told Bret he would be breaching his contract. This literally occurred. He literally said to him "I cannot and will not hold up my end of the bargain." This isn't even disputed. At that point to then say "hey don't worry, he can go negotiate with these other guys" is irrelevant - he'd already told Bret he wasn't going to honor his deal and (at least arguably) hurt his position in terms of negotiations compared to where Bret had been the year prior when he actually was a free agent. 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dylan Waco Posted August 16, 2014 Report Share Posted August 16, 2014 Bret didn't sue because he punched out the owner of the company Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shining Wiz Posted August 16, 2014 Report Share Posted August 16, 2014 Depends on what he said, what he did and what they agreed to whether it really was a repudiation and a breach. Unless they actually stopped paying the contract, then it was not breached. And if they agreed to tare up that contract and operate under a new agreement, then this is a null point. And yes, I shouldn't have said reasonable creative control is meaningless, but rather incredibly vague. And the idea that it meant whatever they agreed on May actually have rendered it meaningless as what would happen if they didn't agree? Nothing would happen? 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shining Wiz Posted August 16, 2014 Report Share Posted August 16, 2014 Bret didn't sue because he punched out the owner of the company 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steenalized Posted August 16, 2014 Report Share Posted August 16, 2014 Framing the debate as "allowing him to negotiate with a third party" is a stretch so massive Jerry McDevitt wouldn't even make it. Vince told Bret he would be breaching his contract. This literally occurred. He literally said to him "I cannot and will not hold up my end of the bargain." This isn't even disputed. At that point to then say "hey don't worry, he can go negotiate with these other guys" is irrelevant - he'd already told Bret he wasn't going to honor his deal and (at least arguably) hurt his position in terms of negotiations compared to where Bret had been the year prior when he actually was a free agent. 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dylan Waco Posted August 16, 2014 Report Share Posted August 16, 2014 You are the only person I've ever spoken to who alleges the contract wasn't breached. Bret punching out his boss and destroying thousands of dollars of equipment on live t.v. killed any chance of him suing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shining Wiz Posted August 16, 2014 Report Share Posted August 16, 2014 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shining Wiz Posted August 16, 2014 Report Share Posted August 16, 2014 So if the contract was breached, why did they have to give him permission in writing to negotiate? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shining Wiz Posted August 16, 2014 Report Share Posted August 16, 2014 Framing the debate as "allowing him to negotiate with a third party" is a stretch so massive Jerry McDevitt wouldn't even make it. Vince told Bret he would be breaching his contract. This literally occurred. He literally said to him "I cannot and will not hold up my end of the bargain." This isn't even disputed. At that point to then say "hey don't worry, he can go negotiate with these other guys" is irrelevant - he'd already told Bret he wasn't going to honor his deal and (at least arguably) hurt his position in terms of negotiations compared to where Bret had been the year prior when he actually was a free agent. 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shining Wiz Posted August 16, 2014 Report Share Posted August 16, 2014 You are the only person I've ever spoken to who alleges the contract wasn't breached. Bret punching out his boss and destroying thousands of dollars of equipment on live t.v. killed any chance of him suing. 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebrainfollower Posted August 17, 2014 Report Share Posted August 17, 2014 I feel kind of responsible for this whole thing. Though the fact that PWO has a member who could provide better legal aid to Vince than what he's got is either funny or sad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dylan Waco Posted August 17, 2014 Report Share Posted August 17, 2014 There is less than no chance a WWE countersuit would have capped at half a million. I've seen workplace suits with nothing nearly as severe with people suing for well into the 7 figures Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shining Wiz Posted August 17, 2014 Report Share Posted August 17, 2014 There is less than no chance a WWE countersuit would have capped at half a million. I've seen workplace suits with nothing nearly as severe with people suing for well into the 7 figures 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shining Wiz Posted August 17, 2014 Report Share Posted August 17, 2014 I feel kind of responsible for this whole thing. Though the fact that PWO has a member who could provide better legal aid to Vince than what he's got is either funny or sad. 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blazer Posted August 17, 2014 Report Share Posted August 17, 2014 I'd like to think Loss refers to the contract Vince broke and that's his point. The contract for "creative control" was written and agreed to in the spirit that Bret would have direction with his character. I don't believe this should have given him the right to decide if and when he could lose the title. What, if he didn't want to lose it, could have left the Federation and gone to WCW without dropping the title? No fucking way. The "creative control" contract was written so Vince didn't dress him up like a fucking clown and make him come out on Raw and wrestle in a slop pit with Henry Godwin. If Vince asked him to drop the company championship at Survivor Series, he should have. He could have had control of how it happened (pinfall after interference, clean, etc), but the belt has to change when the boss says. Bret owns his character with that contract, but not the belt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt D Posted August 17, 2014 Report Share Posted August 17, 2014 Bret didn't sue because he didn't want to hurt the rest of the boys. It's like you don't know him at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dawho5 Posted August 17, 2014 Report Share Posted August 17, 2014 Is it just me, or has Shining Wiz been excessively contradictory in every thread he has posted in? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts