What are Symmonds Legal Options to be Put on Team?

What does he lose? wrote:

What are his loses for having to wear the uniform?

Any other talk is a waste of time until it can be established he will incur loses for having to wear the uniform.

You may not care if other people tell you what to wear and what to think and what to do.

I want to chim in. The letter was not make at the time the contract was created. The wording in the statement predates it by a lot. It would be mostly irrelevent.

Law talking guy wrote:

I want to chim in. The letter was not make at the time the contract was created. The wording in the statement predates it by a lot. It would be mostly irrelevent.

I think that could be right. But the problem is that the contract between USATF and Symmonds was never created. It was just offered. So the letter could be used as relevant evidence to demonstrate how the parties understood the contract at the time Symmonds entered into it (assuming this counterfactual world where Symmonds signed the contract and then later challenged it.)

Morons! No loses, no lawsuit.

Mike M. wrote:

I think that could be right. But the problem is that the contract between USATF and Symmonds was never created. It was just offered. So the letter could be used as relevant evidence to demonstrate how the parties understood the contract at the time Symmonds entered into it (assuming this counterfactual world where Symmonds signed the contract and then later challenged it.)

It is not right. The parol evidence could come in to resolve ambiguities. In truth, there isn't much ambiguity because Nick's public comments demonstrate that he knew the breadth the drafter intended for that clause. Course of performance would reiterate that point.

Don't misunderstand my loyalty: I am 100% behind Nick. I am merely refuting the notion that he could sign the contract, wear Brooks uniforms to anything he considers an "unofficial" event and then claim the terms were not clear to him when he signed.

His remedies are likely not contractual. He might have a chance in equity but it appears he is going to fight the fight on the political front.

He was given the option to wear non-branded clothing, i.e. his street clothes, in the contract he refused to sign. This will never go to trial. No one really gives a rats ass that Nick has wear this t-shirt over that t-shirt. Be realistic. What judge should hear it? What jury would be sympathetic? None and none!

Plus, you've failed to even come up with one penny of loses for him having to wear the USA uniform or his street clothes while representing USA at worlds.

Spouting legal jargon that's never coming into play might make you feel intelligent, but no one's buying it.

Mundus Vult wrote:

Don't misunderstand my loyalty: I am 100% behind Nick. I am merely refuting the notion that he could sign the contract, wear Brooks uniforms to anything he considers an "unofficial" event and then claim the terms were not clear to him when he signed.

I'm not 100% up on the facts, but wasn't it supposed to be okay for him to wear whatever he pleased to anything that wasn't an official team event? And his issue was with how broadly USATF may be defining the scope of such events? Besides, even if he publicly manifested worries about the meaning of the language, that doesn't establish that that was his actual understanding of the agreement.

I think any *potential* contract claim would have to be related to his qualification at US Nationals and if there was any agreement for the athletes that certain performances would qualify them for a spot on the WC team. It could even be an implied contract (widely understood that winning athletes will be selected based upon historical precedent), and Nick could claim that he fulfilled his performance end of the bargain. Damages could be lost earnings due to any forgone events while he was in "WC preparation" mode, but prospective earnings and sponsorship deals arising from his actual participation should be too tenuous.

IMO, Nick should have just gone and done his own thing, make USATF sue him to recover (I'm not sure what) from Nick's "breach of contract," then they would really look to be the bad guys.

He was selected, but refused to sign the contact. It's like he was offered a job, but didn't like the offer in the contact, thereby declining the offer. Since there are no paying meets between his refusal to sign the contract and worlds, there's no loss of income. By signing the contract and having to wear non-branded clothing or USA team gear at worlds would not have resulted in lost income. Therefore, he can't really sue for anything. Some lawyer might pick up the case on Nick's dime, but it won't get far, and Nick will be out of pocket and still not going to worlds. The publicity stunt aspect of Nick's little game has also backfired. Most posters seem to disagree, some vehemently, with his actions. No one on the team has joined him in his action. Maybe he's happy with the little bit of attention he gained and now won't have to go get spanked at worlds.

I was thinking that the original holding of a "qualifying event" and Nick's participation in it could at least constitute (if not an implied contract itself with vague terms) a "preliminary agreement" (the "contract" with the precise terms of an athlete's participation to be determined subsequent to qualification). "Preliminary agreements" can be binding upon either side to negotiate in good faith with the other party, so could Nick claim that there was a preliminary agreement/understanding to negotiate in good faith over precise contract terms and that USATF did not do so by essentially offering a take-it-or-leave-it contract? In any event, courts tend to favor the party with less bargaining power...not saying he would have a strong case here, just pondering.

The only place where that falls apart is that this isn't Nick's first selection to a national team. It's also not the first time he's signed such an agreement (Max's letter clearly states Nick signed a similar agreement in 2014, and I'm sure there were many others). At no time in the past, at least to our knowledge, did Nick attempt to negotiate the terms of the contract, so the onus would be on him to explain why this time is different. And the answer is: it's not different.

Mike M.

I mostly agree with your wise analysis.

Wasn't the statment if conditions first offered at nationals? And not with the letter. I think the letter came afterward.

Too bad you're just a simpleton, period. The difference in this case is Symmonds and the other athlete's didn't willingly enter into any agreement with USATF. They are being forced to accept the agreement because of a deal USATF made with NIKE. And the fact a federation enters into an agreement that forbids athletes from wearing their brands in their free time away from the event, is indeed a restraint of trade against those athlete's sponsors and in turn the athletes themselves. It very likely falls under "restraint of interstate commerce," because every move the athletes make is photographed, video recorded, then shown on the internet which has global reach.

Arrogance combined with ignorance is such an ugly combination.

Finally correct wrote:

Exactly!

No loses. No lawsuit.

May want to hold on to that day job.

First he has to hope he has a good lawyer. Then Nick and his lawyer prepare their pleading paper if they haven't already. Then they file it in a Federal Court as soon as possible and request an immediate injunction against USATF keeping him off he team.

The key is he needs to retain the strongest, most experienced attorney he can find who will take the case, preferably one who has plead to the Supreme Court.

Too bad you're just a simpleton, period. The difference in this case is Symmonds and the other athlete's didn't willingly enter into any agreement with USATF. They are being forced to accept the agreement because of a deal USATF made with NIKE. And the fact a federation enters into an agreement that forbids athletes from wearing their brands in their free time away from the event, is indeed a restraint of trade against those athlete's sponsors and in turn the athletes themselves. It very likely falls under "restraint of interstate commerce," because every move the athletes make is photographed, video recorded, then shown on the internet which has global reach.

Arrogance combined with ignorance is such an ugly combination.

It doesn't fall under "restraint of interstate commerce" IF HE SIGNS THE CONTRACT willingly. If he doesn't sign the contract, that's his choice. If he does sign the contract, then you can't say "welp, I signed this, but it's not allowing me to do something that if states I can't do"

Drink some coffee and wake up. He didn't sign the contract. He was essentially being coerced into signing it. Now he is kicked off a team he earned the right to be on as our national champion. You'll figure it out someday, keep trying.

Drink some coffee and wake up. He didn't sign the contract. He was essentially being coerced into signing it. Now he is kicked off a team he earned the right to be on as our national champion. You'll figure it out someday, keep trying.[/quote]

Drink some chamomile and relax. Obviously he didn't sign the contract. The point I was making is IF he signs the contract, you need to read each and every word in a sentence or you may miss the point. Next, he is not "kick off a team he...". He is choosing not to be on the team. He was sent a uniform, had a place on the team, he simply chose not to be on the team as he didn't agree with the contract.

You'll figure it out someday, but I hope you stop trying.

I do enjoy a good labor debate.

Would Symmonds have been in a better position if he signed the contract?

By not signing the contract, is he in a weaker legal position. Does he have a case by choosing not to ?

Is the letter legally binding?

Did he get legal advice prior to this, or if did he shoot from the hip? Is he allowing USATF to walk into a trap?

It doesn't fall under "restraint of interstate commerce" IF HE SIGNS THE CONTRACT willingly. If he doesn't sign the contract, that's his choice. If he does sign the contract, then you can't say "welp, I signed this, but it's not allowing me to do something that if states I can't do"[/quote]

Sure it can. Contracts of adhesion are usually a hallmark of monopolistic conduct. The restraint of trade is not absolved just because the victims entered into the agreement without a gun pointed to their head. For example, if Comcast was the only cable provider in your town and made you sign a contract that forbid you from subscribing to a streaming video service, they would be running afoul of the Sherman Act even if you went ahead and signed the contract willingly. In fact it need not even be a contract of adhesion. You cannot consent to a violation of anti-trust laws.