wejo wrote:
Another question for lawyers: Would a better legal strategy to get on the team would have been to blackline the contract and sign that? ie adding what he considered to be a team function where he would wear Nike stuff.
.
Yes. Integrated, Inc. v. Alec Fergusson Elec. Contractors (1967) 250 Cal.App.2d 287, states: "It is an accepted rule of contract interpretation that where provisions are inconsistent, written or typewritten provisions prevail over printed portions which have been composed without reference to particular parties or contract."
Thus, he should have signed the contract with the insertion: "As used herein "official" is defined to refer to scheduled press conferences and events inside the stadium" which would have made it part of his contract. Then, if the USATF told Nick that he wasn't properly dressed while drinking coffee at his hotel, he could have pointed out that his contract does not define it to be an "official" event. He could then point out that his definition of the word "official" was never objected to and is now part of the contract. (The contract does not state that insertions and/or alterations need to be countersigned by USATF.)
If USATF did object, he would have likely opened a dialogue, where the USATF lawyer would have either defined the term "official" or refused to accept the signed contract with the insertion. If the USATF rejected Nick's signed contract, he could have pointed out that the contract states: "All Athletes are required to read, agree to, and sign this Statement of Conditions in order to be a member of USA Track & Field National Team (The “Team”)." Nick could have then shown that he read, agreed, to and signed the contract as requested and thus, met all of the conditions to be on the team.
Overall, because Nick only made inquiries about what the term "official" meant, without inserting his own definition on the contract, the USATF lawyer likely decided that there was no contract "at issue" and therefore there was nothing for him to do.