Don't you think that by filing suit they've waived that provision? Or at least they could probably seal the $$ terms.
Don't you think that by filing suit they've waived that provision? Or at least they could probably seal the $$ terms.
As I understand Contract law, no one can be bound by one contract into another. For each new contract, consent must be shown by each party. So, in my mind, unless there's an unusual set of language that defines Berian's presentation of NB's offer to Nike as consent to a matching contract with Nike, Berian should not be obligated to a renewed Nike Contract. Moreover, it appears that Berian was simply following through on the original contract by presenting NB's offer, and such an act can only be interpreted as such and nothing constituting consent to a new contract.
If this is the case, Nike is under the impression it can treat its athletes like their Asian sweatshop employees. I'll get the popcorn.
Actually, I think Nike wants to see NB's confidential terms. Nike will do everything it can to prevent NB from seeing theirs.
4L or bust wrote:
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.
This is my favorite of all the nutty comments. But it'd be fun to see a "supervised" 3L in court against counsel for an $86 billion corporation.
If they don't have a case and are hoping to win by intimidation, any law student could win.
dose o' real wrote:
As I understand Contract law, no one can be bound by one contract into another. For each new contract, consent must be shown by each party. So, in my mind, unless there's an unusual set of language that defines Berian's presentation of NB's offer to Nike as consent to a matching contract with Nike, Berian should not be obligated to a renewed Nike Contract. Moreover, it appears that Berian was simply following through on the original contract by presenting NB's offer, and such an act can only be interpreted as such and nothing constituting consent to a new contract.
If this is the case, Nike is under the impression it can treat its athletes like their Asian sweatshop employees. I'll get the popcorn.
And, by presenting the terms to Nike Berian has likely complied with the original contract terms. After the "match" made by Nike it is up to the agent to determine which offer is a better deal. It seems Nike's offer was not a complete match, and Nike wants to know what NB offered that Nike didn't.
Material Terms wrote:
It seems Nike's offer was not a complete match, and Nike wants to know what NB offered that Nike didn't.
A coach that understand the 800, maybe?
I think the deal breaker is that Nike wants to make the athletes wear their crappy shoes.
Ah I misread your earlier post.
I can't imagine that'll be a sticking point for this litigation. Either Berian would've told NB that he had a match provision in his Nike contract or else the terms of the NB offer will be discoverable to Nike so it can prove up its case that its offer was materially similar to NB's.
Nike definitely doesn't have the equities in this case, but I have to imagine their contracts are rock solid.
new low even for Nike wrote:
Material Terms wrote:It seems Nike's offer was not a complete match, and Nike wants to know what NB offered that Nike didn't.
A coach that understand the 800, maybe?
Yes, and "match" is exceptionally hard to prove. This is why "first right of refusal" can't reasonably include consent. The whole point of "first right of refusal" is just so that one party is kept in the loop if the other party is negotiating with another, and that party can prepare to counter offer. That's good business. Strong arming the other party into a new contract, how Nike is apparently doing, is going to be a PR nightmare.
another clerk wrote:
Ah I misread your earlier post.
I can't imagine that'll be a sticking point for this litigation. Either Berian would've told NB that he had a match provision in his Nike contract or else the terms of the NB offer will be discoverable to Nike so it can prove up its case that its offer was materially similar to NB's.
Nike definitely doesn't have the equities in this case, but I have to imagine their contracts are rock solid.
As rock solid as NB's non-disclosure terms. The lawsuit would a way to make this terms discoverable. That seems to be the real point of this litigation.
Material Terms wrote:
dose o' real wrote:As I understand Contract law, no one can be bound by one contract into another. For each new contract, consent must be shown by each party. So, in my mind, unless there's an unusual set of language that defines Berian's presentation of NB's offer to Nike as consent to a matching contract with Nike, Berian should not be obligated to a renewed Nike Contract. Moreover, it appears that Berian was simply following through on the original contract by presenting NB's offer, and such an act can only be interpreted as such and nothing constituting consent to a new contract.
If this is the case, Nike is under the impression it can treat its athletes like their Asian sweatshop employees. I'll get the popcorn.
And, by presenting the terms to Nike Berian has likely complied with the original contract terms. After the "match" made by Nike it is up to the agent to determine which offer is a better deal. It seems Nike's offer was not a complete match, and Nike wants to know what NB offered that Nike didn't.
Nope. It's not up to the agent to decide. It does not matter which is a better deal. Not at all. If the agent were smart he'd have an attorney look at the Nike "match" vs the NB contract and the spell out how exactly it wasn't a match. But that would only happen after the Feb contract from Nike.
Then that would put the onus on Nike to say how it does match. Boris and his agent handled it very amateurish.
dose o' real wrote:
new low even for Nike wrote:A coach that understand the 800, maybe?
Yes, and "match" is exceptionally hard to prove. This is why "first right of refusal" can't reasonably include consent. The whole point of "first right of refusal" is just so that one party is kept in the loop if the other party is negotiating with another, and that party can prepare to counter offer. That's good business. Strong arming the other party into a new contract, how Nike is apparently doing, is going to be a PR nightmare.
Wrong! the right of first refusal is exactly. the first party in the contract has the right to match and the other contract not merely negotiate
If the parties wanted to do you could've had A right at first negotiation in the contract which would say that the parties would have to negotiate in good faith prior to seeking any other deals.
DMBEAY wrote:
rojo wrote:You think Mo Farah - a guy who was just 27, and was clearly the best distance runner in all of Britain, where the Olympics were going to be held the next year, as he'd just run 12:57 in 2010, wasn't as attractive??
Berian was a 1:43 high guy.
Clearly not to adidas if they didn't offer to match...
Duh.
... which is why Nike is the juggernaut in this sport.
Les wrote:
Wow, that's a terrible agreement. It basically makes you Nike's plaything to sign or discard as they please. His agent should never have advised Berian to sign that. That said, Nike is notoriously vindictive and are probably trying to make an example of Berian.
This sums it up. ^^^^
Why would anyone enter into a contract that gives them the right to reenter past the term of the contract. Basically it's a Rowe v Cap drama. The White Hats vs Satan's Spawn.
new low even for Nike wrote:
4L or bust wrote:This is my favorite of all the nutty comments. But it'd be fun to see a "supervised" 3L in court against counsel for an $86 billion corporation.
If they don't have a case and are hoping to win by intimidation, any law student could win.
That the average "pro" T&F athlete cannot afford. Which, is probably the point. Boris' head on a pike for all to see on your way into every T&F meet.
Waaaaaa waaaaaa 😩😠Big bad Nike forces athletes into the contracts! It makes athletes sign them without reading them! Why can't they just leave Boris alone!?
How many of the people in here troll millennial-bashing and conservative political type threads, or genuinely have pro-business/pro-right/"pro-responsibility" inclinations, but hypocritically also see Nike as "satan" who has no viable claim in this lawsuit; they're just doing this to be petty.
Go Nike baby!
Love America. F*** with the bull. Get the horns.
dose o' real wrote:
If this is the case, Nike is under the impression it can treat its athletes like their Asian sweatshop employees. I'll get the popcorn.
But they signed a contract.
.
malmo wrote:
dose o' real wrote:If this is the case, Nike is under the impression it can treat its athletes like their Asian sweatshop employees. I'll get the popcorn.
But they signed a contract.
...and the presented the financials to Nike. Then Nike made their offer to match what Nike wanted to match. Their alternative matching offer was turned down. Are you implying that a signed contract that ended, can imply a new contract must be agreed to? Nike only has the right to match. Not the right to force signing of their contract.