Holy cow!! Nike just served Boris Berian at the Hoka One One Meet - They are suing him for breach of contract

Nike'd by Nike wrote:

How and where he was served is the issue right now...

Do you serve Steph Curry on the court while he is warming up? How about during a set change for Lady Gaga at a concert? Or serve the Nike CEO during contract negotiations with another company at HQ main office?

What an illogical crybaby post.

You think a process server is getting anywhere near any of these people?

Pro Bono legal services will not beat NIKE.

Four pages worth of posts and not one person on here knows any details. Just another example of LRC groupthink.

We hate Nike. We hate Rupp. We hate dopers*.

*except LRC-approved dopers

who actually served the parts in these matters? Attorneys? The court? I doubt it's the plaintiff.

Nike could not fully match the terms of NB's contract because of reductions in the Nike offer.

So Capriotti gets mad, waits until the middle of May to have Ben Ceaser, Paul Mosher, Simon Bairu or Rob Lowtis (one of his henchmen, not sure which one had to do this job) to fly LA and point out Borri to get summoned before the guy's race.

Nike knows they can't really do anything 6 months later but why not try and ruin this athletes' season.

Capriotti and has small staff are a cancer for the sport. This is some hateful stuff but they always seem to get away with it.

Have we forgotten this is a young man who dropped out of a academically mediocre university to work at McDonald's because his "free spirit" couldn't handle the basic level of responsibility of showing up to class and doing his work?

College isn't difficult. Millions of un-intelligent 18 year olds manage to show up to class and do the basic level of work necessary to earn a degree. You barely have to be literate to graduate college.

This is not a man who makes intelligent long-term decisions. He's an immature guy who's lucky to be incredibly fast. My instinct would be to side with Nike on this, at least as far as the legal situation goes.

The Single Voice of Reason wrote:

Have we forgotten this is a young man who dropped out of a academically mediocre university to work at McDonald's because his "free spirit" couldn't handle the basic level of responsibility of showing up to class and doing his work?

College isn't difficult. Millions of un-intelligent 18 year olds manage to show up to class and do the basic level of work necessary to earn a degree. You barely have to be literate to graduate college.

This is not a man who makes intelligent long-term decisions. He's an immature guy who's lucky to be incredibly fast. My instinct would be to side with Nike on this, at least as far as the legal situation goes.

That has nothing to do with. You reek of jealousy and desperation.

It means they live/reside in different states. It also means the suit is for over 75k or it wouldn't be in federal court.

SlowFatMaster wrote:

I thought I knew what "diversity" meant, but what does it mean here (5th case from top = Nike vs. Berian)?

https://dockets.justia.com/browse/state-oregon/noscat-1/nos-190

It means they live/reside in different states. Which also means the suit is for over 75k or it wouldn't be in federal court.

Unfortunately I'm not a federal attorney. We need a fed atty to log into Pacer to get the pleadings.

rojo wrote:

Corrupt Agent wrote:

Hawi is sleazy and should be investigated.Nike would not do anything if the contracted had ended and it was not renewed. We are not getting the full story here. Did Hawi do the original Nike deal? My guess is not, he is paid by commission on new business.Boris is not savy to the world of shoe contracts.

I think we may be surprised when the truth comes out.

As others have stated here. We don't know any of the facts. There are two sides to every story.

But the words 'sleazy' and 'Hawi' are polar opposites in my mind. From my experience, they don't belong in the same sentence.

What we have here is posters that have no idea about shoe contracts and deals done. Maybe an overstatement on sleazy but I would bet this is agent driven for a better deal and not well thought on his part.Boris doesn't have clue to contracts and now finds himself in hot water. Agent cuts the deal not Boris.

Melquiades wrote:

Why is there any shock about this, the guy breached his contract. What other job/career would the same thing not happen?

Yeah. And it probably isn't really about Berian, but about Nike's position with their other athletes.

Is it too hard to imagine that a simple guy who dropped out of college because of the difficulty in making grades would make a bad decision in regard to a contract that he signed? I want Berian to succeed on the track, but sometimes you gotta learn the hard way.

What troubles me the most is that the dude has a lot of sharp people around him: BMart, Joe Vigil, Hawi Sports Managment (Meb's bro). One would think that he would have enough smart advisers to review details before making decisions. Makes me wonder....

Lawyer Lady wrote:

SlowFatMaster wrote:

I thought I knew what "diversity" meant, but what does it mean here (5th case from top = Nike vs. Berian)?

https://dockets.justia.com/browse/state-oregon/noscat-1/nos-190

It means they live/reside in different states. Which also means the suit is for over 75k or it wouldn't be in federal court.

75k which likely means Nike is trying to get back 100% of their money paid to Berian, plus damages, plus attorney's fees.

Gjfuyhhgggvg wrote:

That has nothing to do with. You reek of jealousy and desperation.

Explain to me how someone's ability to make intelligent, pragmatic longterm decisions has "nothing to do with" his probability of breaching a contract? I'd say this is exactly the type of person you would EXPECT to breach a contract without thinking about or realizing the consequences.

Pro Bono wrote:

Also, many law schools have pro bono legal clinics where law students, who are supervised by licensed attorneys, represent clients without charge. I'll bet some idealistic law student would jump at the chance to take this one on.

It's clear you've never been in a lawsuit. You do not want a law student representing you in a case against Nike. Lawsuits are normally over arcane wording of a contract and interpretations of what something means.

The best lawyer often wins. I didn't understand that until I got into business.

For example, if I sell you an a 300 x 250 ad on my website Can you then take that ad and have another 300 x 250 ad drop below it. I would say no. But a good lawyer would say, "it's not forbidden". I sue you for violating the contract and we're going to be in the six figures before it's decided.

Does Nike actully sever papers?

Is there any industry norms for the short term contract Berian apparently signed with Nike? Are upfront bonuses standard? Do sponsors right in liquidated damages for breach. Have courts enforced those sort of liquidated damages or have they tossed them out as an unnecessary "adhesion clause"?

The most likely scenario I can imagine is Nike gave Berian an upfront bonus when he signed but contract said they could recover all or part of bonus if Berian breaches contract before end of contract. Berian breached before end of contract and Nike attempted to recover bonus but Berian refused and now Nike has sued him to recover bonus. If this is the case then Nike has a pretty solid claim but serving him at a track meet is unnecessary and a pretty dick move. I find it hard to believe that they couldn't locate him somewhere else. I've been served before and they definitely didn't do it at my workplace.

Also, as Berian does have an agent there is no reason they couldn't serve his agent at agent's listed business address and in that case personal service normally isn't necessary on either his agent or Berian. (Again, none of us really know what happened and its possible that both Berian and his agent have been dodging process server but I find that unlikely)

On the other hand Nike might have wrote in some sort of liquidated damages clause where Berian had to reimburse Nike for a large sum of money based on theoretical lost revenue, good will, marketing exposure, etc, etc if he breached, In this case, Nike's claim is a lot shakier and even more of a dick move as one athlete running or not running in Nike gear has almost no effect on their bottom line or marketing potential.

Gjfuyhhgggvg wrote:

The Single Voice of Reason wrote:

Have we forgotten this is a young man who dropped out of a academically mediocre university to work at McDonald's because his "free spirit" couldn't handle the basic level of responsibility of showing up to class and doing his work?

College isn't difficult. Millions of un-intelligent 18 year olds manage to show up to class and do the basic level of work necessary to earn a degree. You barely have to be literate to graduate college.

This is not a man who makes intelligent long-term decisions. He's an immature guy who's lucky to be incredibly fast. My instinct would be to side with Nike on this, at least as far as the legal situation goes.

That has nothing to do with. You reek of jealousy and desperation.

Absent any other information about the case, I'd say his past provides the best available insight into the likelihood that the guy is the type to flake on a contract.

It amazes me that we have people fighting back and forth when we bascially have no facts. I'll try to reach out to Berian and his representatives and see if we can get a few facts.

How do you know what he did? We have zero facts here other than it appears he's been alleged to have breached a contract. Berian claim is the contract expired on 12/31/2015.

Similarly.

Do people realize that Berian wasn't racing at Hoka ? What event was he entered in? I believe he was there as a fan.