NintendoLogic Posted August 18, 2014 Report Share Posted August 18, 2014 I'm rather amused by the folks who think "A contract is a contract is a contract" is an argument in Vince's favor. Also, Vince always had the option of not putting the belt on a guy whose contract he was about to breach. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebrainfollower Posted August 18, 2014 Report Share Posted August 18, 2014 Yeah I see no need to keep going with this. If you don't understand how much of a factor Shawn was you don't understand what happened at all. You must think Regan and Goneril are non factors in Lear or something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blueminister Posted August 18, 2014 Report Share Posted August 18, 2014 Any time you want insight into the whipped Dr. Seuss carny mentality of pro-wrestling listen to someone argue that Montreal was the right thing to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blueminister Posted August 18, 2014 Report Share Posted August 18, 2014 Although as a strictly academic point I've been wondering how the creative control cause would apply to a contract that one party has openly declared its intention to break. Was Bret effectively working on a show-to-show basis? Ultimately the only fault I find with Bret is that he kept the program running instead of going into seclusion and getting lawyered up the minute Vince reneged. But then again we're back to the "wrestlers are whipped as hell" deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shining Wiz Posted August 18, 2014 Report Share Posted August 18, 2014 Although as a strictly academic point I've been wondering how the creative control cause would apply to a contract that one party has openly declared its intention to break. Was Bret effectively working on a show-to-show basis? Ultimately the only fault I find with Bret is that he kept the program running instead of going into seclusion and getting lawyered up the minute Vince reneged. But then again we're back to the "wrestlers are whipped as hell" deal. 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eduardo Posted August 18, 2014 Report Share Posted August 18, 2014 Bret Hart stated on that Hart-Michaels DVD/Blu-ray that he had completed all his contracted dates by November 9. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loss Posted August 18, 2014 Report Share Posted August 18, 2014 Whether the contract was breached early on or not, it was breached in the end, because they did a finish that Bret Hart did not agree to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerryvonKramer Posted August 18, 2014 Author Report Share Posted August 18, 2014 I'd be fascinated to know how that would hold up in court. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smack2k Posted August 18, 2014 Report Share Posted August 18, 2014 Was it the right thing to do by Vince and WWF? No way, it wasn't, it was spineless to do…BUT, in the situation WWF was in, with the fear Vince must have had about what "could" happen, I 100% agree with it. Would I do it in the same position? YES... WCW had done a LOT to try and bury the WWF and that would have been the final nail. I think about Bischoff during that time and I believe if he had the shot, he would have found a way to get the WWF Title on TV, maybe blurred out and make side comments about what it is, but I think he'd have done it. WWF was fighting for their lives and you gotta get dirty sometimes to do that.. Was it right? NO, Was it the best thing to do with all circumstances? YES… Aside from the title thing, having Shawn beat him puts over your new champ as THE guy in your company now, the guy that beat the champion that left afterward for more money. You can build from there WAY better than having Bret put someone over and then Shawn beat him, while WCW has Bret and makes comments about how WWF's guy couldn't beat their new guy in the end (Bret). Contracts and legal stuff aside, you gotta do what you gotta do to keep your business afloat and safe... I am NOT a Vince apologist. He went into a LOT of places, offered their talent more money and then took their TV time. Shady business, but form all the stuff I have read about wrestling, he was just the guy to do it. If not him, others…WCW was trying the same thing to take him down and he did what he had to do to stop it…. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smack2k Posted August 18, 2014 Report Share Posted August 18, 2014 Whether the contract was breached early on or not, it was breached in the end, because they did a finish that Bret Hart did not agree to do. Why didn't Bret sue then if that was the case? I am actually curious about that... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loss Posted August 19, 2014 Report Share Posted August 19, 2014 Because he punched Vince and would have been countersued. That's discussed on the first few pages, along with the counterpoint to Bret coming out with the title on Nitro. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shining Wiz Posted August 19, 2014 Report Share Posted August 19, 2014 Whether the contract was breached early on or not, it was breached in the end, because they did a finish that Bret Hart did not agree to do. 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steenalized Posted August 19, 2014 Report Share Posted August 19, 2014 Whether the contract was breached early on or not, it was breached in the end, because they did a finish that Bret Hart did not agree to do. 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shining Wiz Posted August 19, 2014 Report Share Posted August 19, 2014 Whether the contract was breached early on or not, it was breached in the end, because they did a finish that Bret Hart did not agree to do. 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steenalized Posted August 19, 2014 Report Share Posted August 19, 2014 Hah, do I look like a jury? Clearly the creative control was something bargained for so it must have some value. How to quantify it, I'm not sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shining Wiz Posted August 19, 2014 Report Share Posted August 19, 2014 Hah, do I look like a jury? Clearly the creative control was something bargained for so it must have some value. How to quantify it, I'm not sure. Oh yeah....you guys use juries in civil trials. That's a crapshoot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerryvonKramer Posted August 19, 2014 Author Report Share Posted August 19, 2014 I think much of the case would rest on the wording of "reasonable" in the contract. Was it reasonable for Bret Hart to lose the WWF title in his last match in Montreal? Prosecution: "Your honour, I put it to you that Mr. Hart had good reasons for not wanting to do this. He disliked Mr. Michaels who had been uncooperative in the past on several occasions. He is, as you know, from Canada. And Montreal is in Canada where Mr. Hart feels he has a special connection to the fans. It was unreasonable to expect him to lose to Mr. Michaels in front of these Canadian fans. He was, therefore, well within his rights to refuse the loss." Defence: "Your honour, forgive the expression but Mr. McMahon is not running a home for the psychological well-being of his employees. Part of a sports entertainer's job is to lose sports entertainment matches. And, by the terms of the contract, such an act is entirely reasonable. Mr. McMahon did not ask Mr. Hart to do anything wildly inappropriate, morally offensive, or compromising, but simply something that is part of his everyday job. If you'll excuse me the luxury of an analogy: let us suppose that a postman had such a contract with 'reasonable creative control'. It would be like a postman refusing to deliver a letter to a house simply because he did not like the occupant of that house. Would any postal service accept that the delivery of a simple letter is 'unreasonable'? I put it to you, your honour, that the loss that Mr. Hart was asked to perform in the sports entertainment match at Montreal was akin to the delivery of a simple letter. The request was entirely reasonable, and therefore Mr. McMahon was not in breach of the contract agreement on the grounds of the creative control clause." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steenalized Posted August 19, 2014 Report Share Posted August 19, 2014 Objection. "Reasonable" as a term of art appears in contracts all the time and generally means you have to act in good faith. "Reasonable creative control" in this context meant that Bret and Vince both had to agree. Reasonableness isn't an issue to the validity of Bret's contract expectations, though actually proving damages may be hard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerryvonKramer Posted August 19, 2014 Author Report Share Posted August 19, 2014 Where is it explicitly stated that "reasonable" means "by mutual agreement"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shining Wiz Posted August 19, 2014 Report Share Posted August 19, 2014 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NintendoLogic Posted August 19, 2014 Report Share Posted August 19, 2014 Regarding creative control, it was defined as no booking decision over the last 30 days of the contract could be made without the agreement of both parties. People have been trying to hang onto the word reasonable as a defense, and forgetting there was a definition given of the word. -Dave Meltzer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shining Wiz Posted August 19, 2014 Report Share Posted August 19, 2014 Regarding creative control, it was defined as no booking decision over the last 30 days of the contract could be made without the agreement of both parties. People have been trying to hang onto the word reasonable as a defense, and forgetting there was a definition given of the word. -Dave Meltzer 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steenalized Posted August 19, 2014 Report Share Posted August 19, 2014 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. Hey, it happened to the USFL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steenalized Posted August 19, 2014 Report Share Posted August 19, 2014 Regarding creative control, it was defined as no booking decision over the last 30 days of the contract could be made without the agreement of both parties. People have been trying to hang onto the word reasonable as a defense, and forgetting there was a definition given of the word. -Dave Meltzer 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dawho5 Posted August 19, 2014 Report Share Posted August 19, 2014 Anyone want to take bets as to how long this argument over things that nobody is changing their mind on goes on? As long as we're talking definitions, let's define the word "troll". Does one have to intentionally be engaging in "trolling" to actually be doing just that? Or at a certain point does an argument over something that comes down to how you personally feel about something (something like, say, who was right in the Bret vs. Vince situation), is there mutual egging on going on by both sides because they refuse to quit? Also, I question whether a certain poster is, in fact, unintentionally trolling. And i'm not talking about jvk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts