What right of FIRST refusal and No Negotiation said.
Suppose a gangster wanted to leave the Yakuza and join the Bloods? The Yakuza claim that amputation clauses are the industry standard and just because the Bloods offer sheet doesn't contain them, that doesn't mean they are not there.
Gimme a buckin' frake!
Just Reminiscing wrote:
Does anyone else ever sit back and wonder what Bowerman and Pre would have thought of all this?
Who cares? They aren't lawyers. And the probably would have support their friend---Nike.
noter of taards wrote:
So can Nike enter a clause that they kick Berian's dog twice for every race over 1:45, because New Balance failed to address dog-kicking in the contract they shared with Nike?
Just checking.
Of course not. That's why Nike will lose this one. They didn't match the contract; they offered the same thing MINUS A LIST OF POTENTIAL REDUCTIONS?
If one school offers you a guaranteed full-ride scholarship for four years, and another offers you a full ride as long as you make All-American, IS THAT A MATCH?
Just me wrote:
I don't know who is going to win here. I'm not ever sure who is "in the right." But this whole thing has prevented me from being a Berian fan ever again.
double standard wrote:
LI Runner wrote:Nike claims reductions are industry standard, but Meb doesn't have one with Skechers and there are one or two others that don't have reductions either(I recall it being mentioned when this came out, but forgot who). So right there it can be argued that reductions are NOT a standard clause.
Also, why does Berian have to prove something that doesn't exist, doesn't exist?
Industry standard doesn't mean their aren't exceptions. If 95% of contracts have reductions, but 5% don't, that still means the standard practice for a contract is to have reductions.
And guess who writes the majority of those contracts and therefore ipso facto sets the standard?
this will win it for Berian wrote:
Judge Hernandez interjected at one point and said, “but they had already communicated to you the lack of reductions was material†to the contract in an email from Merhawi Keflezighi to Nike on January 19th.
No it won't. It may have been "material" be there was no information communicated from NB that the offer sheet included Zero reductions. What Hawi said was immaterial - he could have been blowing smoke up Nike's rear, he could have been negotiation this point with NB, etc.
But is the lawsuit worth the PR damage that Nike has received by pursuing this?
rojo wrote:
Jerry Maguire wrote:http://www.flotrack.org/article/42843-new-court-docs-set-stage-in-nike-v-berianNike claims that had Keflezighi or Berian responded to their lack of clarification before then, they would have removed the reductions from its offer to Berian. From today's filings:
"Because Defendant’s agent had failed to list the lack of standard reductions on the New Balance Offer or otherwise offer evidence beyond his own cover note regarding reductions, Nike included them in the proposed form of contract, but that in no way undermined its commitment to match the New Balance Offer, regardless of whether it included reductions...
It is telling that when push came to shove and Defendant needed a sworn declaration from New Balance regarding reductions for this litigation, he easily obtained one. Had Defendant’s agent done so when Nike requested it in January 2016, Nike would have conceded at that point that the New Balance offer was reduction-free."
The shoe company claims that this lack of response from Berian and Keflezighi was part of a plan to sign with New Balance:
Basically Berian & his Agent tried to Ignore Nike in hopes they would go away so he could sign with New Balance... Totally unprofessional and I don't feel bad for him anymore. Totally screwed himself
It's probably rude for me to comment on other journalists work but I thought that article didn't add anything.
The fact that Merhawi said Nike was matching doesn't mean they matched. The fact that Berian and Merhawi didn't want a deal with Nike means little as well.
We were in a lawsuit ourselves. An advertiser refused to pay us. In discovery, we found emails saying basically, "Find a way get out of the letsrun.com contract." When we got to court, their lawyer openly admitted it. " "Damn right. We wanted out of the contract and now we're out of it as they did x y, z."
The fact that Merhawi and Berian wanted out of the contract is obvious. T If I was the lawyer for Berian, I would have admitted that they wanted out of the Nike deal. Don't let that fact make you look guilty. I'd say, "Yes, they didn't want to sign with Nike and don't have to as Nike didn't match."
The first question for a judge to decide is, "Did Nike match?"
Nike says it couldn't match as Merhawi didn't give them the details of the no-reductions. Merhawi counters by saying the offer sheet presented by NB didn't show any reductions so why would I give you the reductions when there were none.
Rojo, how do you dare to call yourself a journalist with all the errors, misspellings, sloppy fact checking, complete lack of EDITING.
Rojo, it had to be said. And don't give me the deadline excuse.
messi wrote:
rojo wrote:It's probably rude for me to comment on other journalists work but I thought that article didn't add anything.
The fact that Merhawi said Nike was matching doesn't mean they matched. The fact that Berian and Merhawi didn't want a deal with Nike means little as well.
We were in a lawsuit ourselves. An advertiser refused to pay us. In discovery, we found emails saying basically, "Find a way get out of the letsrun.com contract." When we got to court, their lawyer openly admitted it. " "Damn right. We wanted out of the contract and now we're out of it as they did x y, z."
The fact that Merhawi and Berian wanted out of the contract is obvious. T If I was the lawyer for Berian, I would have admitted that they wanted out of the Nike deal. Don't let that fact make you look guilty. I'd say, "Yes, they didn't want to sign with Nike and don't have to as Nike didn't match."
The first question for a judge to decide is, "Did Nike match?"
Nike says it couldn't match as Merhawi didn't give them the details of the no-reductions. Merhawi counters by saying the offer sheet presented by NB didn't show any reductions so why would I give you the reductions when there were none.
Rojo, how do you dare to call yourself a journalist with all the errors, misspellings, sloppy fact checking, complete lack of EDITING.
Rojo, it had to be said. And don't give me the deadline excuse.
You feel better now. I know you got that degree in creative writing, but are working at the local Food Mart working on your novel. So this is your only outlet to feel superior.
Precious Roy wrote:
This is always how right of first refusal wars pay out. One side presents the other with the offered terms 1-5 from a letter of intent or offer sheet. The other side agrees to match, but then sends a fully integrated agreement that includes additional terms 6-10. That then puts everyone in the gray area of thinking that the other has repudiated by offering additional terms or breached by walking away. Nike coulda shoulda asked Berian to present them with all material terms before presenting Berian with a fully integrated contract. Berian should have timely told Nike that the reductions did not match New Balance's deal. Nike coulda shoulda sent the fully integrated contract with a cover letter stating that its offer to match was unconditional and any terms in the contract that contradicted any New Balance terms that were unknown to Nike would be stricken. But the business guys control these communications and rarely get help from the legal department. And now you have a pissing match.
Great post. Neither side had a lawyer involved at the right point .
wejo wrote:
Precious Roy wrote:This is always how right of first refusal wars pay out. One side presents the other with the offered terms 1-5 from a letter of intent or offer sheet. The other side agrees to match, but then sends a fully integrated agreement that includes additional terms 6-10. That then puts everyone in the gray area of thinking that the other has repudiated by offering additional terms or breached by walking away. Nike coulda shoulda asked Berian to present them with all material terms before presenting Berian with a fully integrated contract. Berian should have timely told Nike that the reductions did not match New Balance's deal. Nike coulda shoulda sent the fully integrated contract with a cover letter stating that its offer to match was unconditional and any terms in the contract that contradicted any New Balance terms that were unknown to Nike would be stricken. But the business guys control these communications and rarely get help from the legal department. And now you have a pissing match.
Great post. Neither side had a lawyer involved at the right point .
What is important about what Precious Roy posted is: "But the business guys control these communications and rarely get help from the legal department." The Legal department gets no say in the specifics of the terms, nor the fee, nor the term. Legal might tell them, yes they can have reductions, then business makes up what the reductions are and the reduction amount, and what the fee will be, and what the length of the contract will be.
Boris is the loser in this case and long term because his agent is incompetent. n oIs this man a lawyer? Doubtful because he clearly missed the Contract Law class.I question if Boris would agree to a contract that had a matching clause in the first place. Did he understand he ramifications? Were they explained to him?Unfortunately like in the music industry he was just happy to receive a deal when he was still a nobody. Now that he has achieved some success he does not want to live by the clause that allows Nke to match offers. I'm sorry son the real world does not work like that.Let's not feel sorry for him he is getting a huge raise with Nike and he will be invited to all the Nike sponsored meets.
He is correcto wrote:
wejo wrote:Great post. Neither side had a lawyer involved at the right point .
What is important about what Precious Roy posted is: "But the business guys control these communications and rarely get help from the legal department." The Legal department gets no say in the specifics of the terms, nor the fee, nor the term. Legal might tell them, yes they can have reductions, then business makes up what the reductions are and the reduction amount, and what the fee will be, and what the length of the contract will be.
Ah, so you work for Capriotti and have a lot to lose when Nike is told Berian is free to sign with whomever he wants. Maybe you are Capriotti and taking shots at one of your three top mafia targets.
Parbuster wrote:
Boris is the loser in this case and long term because his agent is incompetent. n oIs this man a lawyer? Doubtful because he clearly missed the Contract Law class.
I question if Boris would agree to a contract that had a matching clause in the first place. Did he understand he ramifications? Were they explained to him?
Unfortunately like in the music industry he was just happy to receive a deal when he was still a nobody. Now that he has achieved some success he does not want to live by the clause that allows Nke to match offers. I'm sorry son the real world does not work like that.
Let's not feel sorry for him he is getting a huge raise with Nike and he will be invited to all the Nike sponsored meets.
He is correcto wrote:What is important about what Precious Roy posted is: "But the business guys control these communications and rarely get help from the legal department." The Legal department gets no say in the specifics of the terms, nor the fee, nor the term. Legal might tell them, yes they can have reductions, then business makes up what the reductions are and the reduction amount, and what the fee will be, and what the length of the contract will be.