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

This article talks about a similar case.

http://www.mondaq.com/unitedstates/x/219796/Sport/Moving+Day+Oakleys+Lawsuit+Against+Mcilroy+Highlights+Challenges+Of+Rights+Of+First+Refusal

gnome de plume wrote:

Hate to break this to you, but you're beginning to sound like a tool. "Material" is not vague.

Hate to break this to you, tool, but "Material" is vague. If you are an attorney and think it is rock solid they you are a lousy attorney. If you are a shill for Nike I can see your point.

wejo wrote:

Brief update that clarifies things more before we get a response from Boris' legal team.

I reached out to Merhawi Keflezighi, Boris' agent, for more comment on the lawsuit: "Our position is that Nike did not completely and timely match all of the material terms of the offer we presented them."

.

I now that Meb is a beloved figure in the community, but this quote made me think of this: if Hawi's English skills are similar to those of his brother, I wouldn't want him representing my interests in negotiations, much less in court.

kjVC wrote:

2016 Mo Farah will be in adidas as well for those interested.

No. Nike sponsors the British national team now. Mo will be wearing the swoosh in Rio.

This is all assumption and innuendo. Hawi maybe didn't get the terms he felt were a better offer, but in reality it did match the offer just not what he wanted. Ive this happen a number of times. What will come out in court are the hard numbers 2=2 type of thing.Nike would not march down this path if they didn't think they had a case against Boris. Hawi for Boris's peace of mind needs to get this resolved asap,get to Portland, seek local legal council with contract background and experience working with Nike.

The contract chase is all done pre trials. The shoe companies try to get athletes buttoned up prior. Bonus money will only be paid to a signed athlete.

Surprise winners or teams makers without a deal get signed post but at far lesser value than signing pre trials. They also miss the bonus money.

U Asked For It wrote:

wejo wrote:

Brief update that clarifies things more before we get a response from Boris' legal team.

I reached out to Merhawi Keflezighi, Boris' agent, for more comment on the lawsuit: "Our position is that Nike did not completely and timely match all of the material terms of the offer we presented them."

.

I now that Meb is a beloved figure in the community, but this quote made me think of this: if Hawi's English skills are similar to those of his brother, I wouldn't want him representing my interests in negotiations, much less in court.

LOL ... if grammar skills are you method of choosing a lawyer you are in deep poo. Many authors with exceptional grammar skills fail to sell books well. Authors with lesser skills who know how to write a great plot sell books very well. The same goes with lawyers. Lawyers who are great problem solvers and negotiators will outperform a grammar-perfect lawyer who writes endless pages of gobbledygook.

A Nike shills keeps writing gobbledygook in an attempt to defend the mothership.

I didn't think to ask about the money because one would have to be an idiot to spend the money.

Hawi isn't a practicing lawyer. He won't be representing Boris in federal court. He went to UCLA law school however. He got a shoe contract for Leo Manzano when Ricky Simms didn't. He got Meb the Skechers deal.

wejo wrote:

I didn't think to ask about the money because one would have to be an idiot to spend the money.

Hawi isn't a practicing lawyer. He won't be representing Boris in federal court. He went to UCLA law school however. He got a shoe contract for Leo Manzano when Ricky Simms didn't. He got Meb the Skechers deal.

Did you have any questions written out before hand or did you just play it by ear?

I'm sure Boris didn't spend the money, but I'm curious if they just left it alone or tried to wire it back or sent to an attorney to beheld in escrow.

Continuation Klaus wrote:

gnome de plume wrote:

Hate to break this to you, but you're beginning to sound like a tool. "Material" is not vague.

Hate to break this to you, tool, but "Material" is vague. If you are an attorney and think it is rock solid they you are a lousy attorney. If you are a shill for Nike I can see your point.

I hate to break it to you but Material is NOT a vague term in contract law.

In the law of contracts, a material term in a contract is a term or provision of a contract which concerns significant issues, such as the subject matter, price, quantity, the type of work to be done, and terms of payment or performance

yuiop, how stupid are you? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/olympics/2016/04/27/rio-olympic-games-twitter-cant-stand-horrendous-new-team-gb-kit/

Oh my, why is it when fact based dialog and a reasonable approach to a solution is presented that favors the athlete to get this resolved you digress to the man"Nike" as oppressing the people.Nonsense! Hawi and Boris screwed up, admit it, fix it and move forward. Seeking professional local legal help is a strategic direction that most in the legal profession would look at along with having Nike contract experience. Maybe you would have a Beverly Hills divorce lawyer work this case?

Foda pooda wrote:

I hate to break it to you but Material is NOT a vague term in contract law

You absolutely don't know what you're talking about. Materiality is litigated all the time. I deal with issues of materiality at least once per year, and that's just in my appeals practice.

yuiop wrote:

kjVC wrote:

2016 Mo Farah will be in adidas as well for those interested.

No. Nike sponsors the British national team now. Mo will be wearing the swoosh in Rio.

Nike sponsors British Athletics, but adidas sponsors the entire British Olympic team, so ALL British athletes, regardless of sport, will be wearing adidas uniforms.

[quote]kjVC wrote:

I, for one, don't care about his story. He is not personable, he is not charismatic, is all tatted-up, too much of a recluse.

/quote]

He's got tattoos? Then sue the crap out of him!

Stupid monkeys, of the inked kind!

Foda pooda wrote:

Continuation Klaus wrote:

Hate to break this to you, tool, but "Material" is vague. If you are an attorney and think it is rock solid they you are a lousy attorney. If you are a shill for Nike I can see your point.

I hate to break it to you but Material is NOT a vague term in contract law.

In the law of contracts, a material term in a contract is a term or provision of a contract which concerns significant issues, such as the subject matter, price, quantity, the type of work to be done, and terms of payment or performance

I hate to break it you Lawyer 101, but "Material" terms are vague. If it were rock solid there wouldn't be so many lawsuits over what the terms actually mean.

1/10 for trying.

800 dude wrote:

Foda pooda wrote:

I hate to break it to you but Material is NOT a vague term in contract law

You absolutely don't know what you're talking about. Materiality is litigated all the time. I deal with issues of materiality at least once per year, and that's just in my appeals practice.

No doubt, the question of what terms are material to the contract is frequently litigated. But that is a different question than whether the term "material" is ambiguous, such that one would resort to some secondary rule like construing it against the drafter.

800 dude wrote:

Foda pooda wrote:

I hate to break it to you but Material is NOT a vague term in contract law

You absolutely don't know what you're talking about. Materiality is litigated all the time. I deal with issues of materiality at least once per year, and that's just in my appeals practice.

In your kindergarten class? You misread the post or don't understand.

Of course materiality is litigated. But the term itself is not vague under contract rules.

this is funny. if true, it decimates most of the morans on this thread, crowing about how berian should have just waited 181 days. as you say, looks like that's exactly what they're heading for. perhaps they even fig'd this out with NB and agreed to a handshake deal where he'd wear NB, but *not be an official NB athlete until 181 days into the year. Nike, seeing this going on (and perhaps suspecting as much), sues. As weldon said, and knowing hawi quite well myself, there's no way he's a dummy, and he'll never put himself in a bad position against nike, especially after what they did to his brother. no way nike wins this one, hands down.