Nomadsfest Sox Fans

A forum for the old AOL board Sox fans and others.


    LaRoche Retiring

    Share

    Guest
    Guest

    Re: LaRoche Retiring

    Post by Guest on Fri Mar 18, 2016 2:31 pm

    frank bonifacic wrote:
    Father of Stan wrote:Frank

    I am not claiming to have the answers

    But I know how to ask the right questions

    The reasonable man standard still exists in a court of law doesn't it

    What is intriguing here is how unreasonable everything seems

    The reasonable man concept is a negligence issue.
     
    "Negligence" is doing something that a reasonable person wouldn't do or failing to do something that a reasonable person would do,  under similar circumstances.

    Contracts and the consequences are determined by the contract except in rare instances when a contract can be voided for other issues.


    Frank,

    I bring up reasonable man because based on what I know about this case, I do not think a reasonable man would jump to the conclusion that Kenny Williams all of a sudden decided to breach a term in the contract.

    My understanding is that Williams simply told Larouche to cut down the amount of time the kid spends in the clubhouse.  As far as I know, there was no instance where the kid was either thrown out or physically prevented from entering the contract.  SO WHERE'S THE BREACH

    You also mentioned mitigation.  Did Larouche mention his contract to Williams?  Did LaRouche call Rick Hahn?  Did LaRouche tell Robin Ventura?  I'm sure many of the guys know how to get in touch with Jerry Reinsdorf.  I also bet the White Sox have an HR and a Legal dept.  I would think a reasonable man that had such a kiddie clause agreement would be in touch with one of the above and politely suggest that Williams be informed/reminded of said agreement if he wishes to avoid legal action.  SO WHERE'S THE BREACH

    Now one thing I really don't have an answer to is if LaRouche is allowed to unretired and play 2016 under his current contract.  I hope it doesn't happen, but given the growing stink, it would not surprise me if it did

    Politely and reasonable yours
    THE KARK
    avatar
    rmapasad
    Chairman Reinsdorf

    Posts : 2506
    Join date : 2009-04-06
    Location : Northridge, CA

    Re: LaRoche Retiring

    Post by rmapasad on Fri Mar 18, 2016 3:51 pm

    tHe SicKo FANt wrote:
    frank bonifacic wrote:
    Father of Stan wrote:Frank

    I am not claiming to have the answers

    But I know how to ask the right questions

    The reasonable man standard still exists in a court of law doesn't it

    What is intriguing here is how unreasonable everything seems

    The reasonable man concept is a negligence issue.
     
    "Negligence" is doing something that a reasonable person wouldn't do or failing to do something that a reasonable person would do,  under similar circumstances.

    Contracts and the consequences are determined by the contract except in rare instances when a contract can be voided for other issues.


    Frank,

    I bring up reasonable man because based on what I know about this case, I do not think a reasonable man would jump to the conclusion that Kenny Williams all of a sudden decided to breach a term in the contract.

    My understanding is that Williams simply told Larouche to cut down the amount of time the kid spends in the clubhouse.  As far as I know, there was no instance where the kid was either thrown out or physically prevented from entering the contract.  SO WHERE'S THE BREACH

    You also mentioned mitigation.  Did Larouche mention his contract to Williams?  Did LaRouche call Rick Hahn?  Did LaRouche tell Robin Ventura?  I'm sure many of the guys know how to get in touch with Jerry Reinsdorf.  I also bet the White Sox have an HR and a Legal dept.  I would think a reasonable man that had such a kiddie clause agreement would be in touch with one of the above and politely suggest that Williams be informed/reminded of said agreement if he wishes to avoid legal action.  SO WHERE'S THE BREACH

    Now one thing I really don't have an answer to is if LaRouche is allowed to unretired and play 2016 under his current contract.  I hope it doesn't happen, but given the growing stink, it would not surprise me if it did

    Politely and reasonable yours
    THE KARK


    LaRoche's attorney could use the doctrine of estoppel here. Namely that the Sox had agreed (verbally or in writing) to certain conditions about LaRoche's kid coming into the clubhouse and this was confirmed by the parties' conduct over the last year.  This could have come down one of two ways.  1st - Sox could have asked him nicely to cut back on his son's time and LaRoche could have told them to pound sand since they had an agreement about this or 2nd - Sox could have presented it as an ultimatum - you WILL only have him in the clubhouse X amount of time.   When one party says to the other - "we are no longer honoring the terms of our original agreement"  that I believe is effectively saying they are breaching the contract.   

    MGJOHNSON
    Chairman Reinsdorf

    Posts : 4295
    Join date : 2009-04-05
    Location : Area 51

    Re: LaRoche Retiring

    Post by MGJOHNSON on Fri Mar 18, 2016 4:34 pm

    rmapasad wrote:
    tHe SicKo FANt wrote:
    frank bonifacic wrote:
    Father of Stan wrote:Frank

    I am not claiming to have the answers

    But I know how to ask the right questions

    The reasonable man standard still exists in a court of law doesn't it

    What is intriguing here is how unreasonable everything seems

    The reasonable man concept is a negligence issue.
     
    "Negligence" is doing something that a reasonable person wouldn't do or failing to do something that a reasonable person would do,  under similar circumstances.

    Contracts and the consequences are determined by the contract except in rare instances when a contract can be voided for other issues.


    Frank,

    I bring up reasonable man because based on what I know about this case, I do not think a reasonable man would jump to the conclusion that Kenny Williams all of a sudden decided to breach a term in the contract.

    My understanding is that Williams simply told Larouche to cut down the amount of time the kid spends in the clubhouse.  As far as I know, there was no instance where the kid was either thrown out or physically prevented from entering the contract.  SO WHERE'S THE BREACH

    You also mentioned mitigation.  Did Larouche mention his contract to Williams?  Did LaRouche call Rick Hahn?  Did LaRouche tell Robin Ventura?  I'm sure many of the guys know how to get in touch with Jerry Reinsdorf.  I also bet the White Sox have an HR and a Legal dept.  I would think a reasonable man that had such a kiddie clause agreement would be in touch with one of the above and politely suggest that Williams be informed/reminded of said agreement if he wishes to avoid legal action.  SO WHERE'S THE BREACH

    Now one thing I really don't have an answer to is if LaRouche is allowed to unretired and play 2016 under his current contract.  I hope it doesn't happen, but given the growing stink, it would not surprise me if it did

    Politely and reasonable yours
    THE KARK


    LaRoche's attorney could use the doctrine of estoppel here. Namely that the Sox had agreed (verbally or in writing) to certain conditions about LaRoche's kid coming into the clubhouse and this was confirmed by the parties' conduct over the last year.  This could have come down one of two ways.  1st - Sox could have asked him nicely to cut back on his son's time and LaRoche could have told them to pound sand since they had an agreement about this or 2nd - Sox could have presented it as an ultimatum - you WILL only have him in the clubhouse X amount of time.   When one party says to the other - "we are no longer honoring the terms of our original agreement"  that I believe is effectively saying they are breaching the contract.   

    Jerry could let Kenny dangle for awhile before making a decision on this one.  Maybe it's hope beyond hope (wishful dreaming), but this could lead to a major fish feeding.  Reinsdorf has fired GMs in the past.  Kenny's predecessor was told by Reinsdorf that he had a job for life.  Jerry just didn't mention that it was the life of a fruit fly.

    Guest
    Guest

    Re: LaRoche Retiring

    Post by Guest on Fri Mar 18, 2016 8:15 pm

    rmapasad wrote:
    tHe SicKo FANt wrote:
    frank bonifacic wrote:
    Father of Stan wrote:Frank

    I am not claiming to have the answers

    But I know how to ask the right questions

    The reasonable man standard still exists in a court of law doesn't it

    What is intriguing here is how unreasonable everything seems

    The reasonable man concept is a negligence issue.
     
    "Negligence" is doing something that a reasonable person wouldn't do or failing to do something that a reasonable person would do,  under similar circumstances.

    Contracts and the consequences are determined by the contract except in rare instances when a contract can be voided for other issues.


    Frank,

    I bring up reasonable man because based on what I know about this case, I do not think a reasonable man would jump to the conclusion that Kenny Williams all of a sudden decided to breach a term in the contract.

    My understanding is that Williams simply told Larouche to cut down the amount of time the kid spends in the clubhouse.  As far as I know, there was no instance where the kid was either thrown out or physically prevented from entering the contract.  SO WHERE'S THE BREACH

    You also mentioned mitigation.  Did Larouche mention his contract to Williams?  Did LaRouche call Rick Hahn?  Did LaRouche tell Robin Ventura?  I'm sure many of the guys know how to get in touch with Jerry Reinsdorf.  I also bet the White Sox have an HR and a Legal dept.  I would think a reasonable man that had such a kiddie clause agreement would be in touch with one of the above and politely suggest that Williams be informed/reminded of said agreement if he wishes to avoid legal action.  SO WHERE'S THE BREACH

    Now one thing I really don't have an answer to is if LaRouche is allowed to unretired and play 2016 under his current contract.  I hope it doesn't happen, but given the growing stink, it would not surprise me if it did

    Politely and reasonable yours
    THE KARK


    LaRoche's attorney could use the doctrine of estoppel here. Namely that the Sox had agreed (verbally or in writing) to certain conditions about LaRoche's kid coming into the clubhouse and this was confirmed by the parties' conduct over the last year.  This could have come down one of two ways.  1st - Sox could have asked him nicely to cut back on his son's time and LaRoche could have told them to pound sand since they had an agreement about this or 2nd - Sox could have presented it as an ultimatum - you WILL only have him in the clubhouse X amount of time.   When one party says to the other - "we are no longer honoring the terms of our original agreement"  that I believe is effectively saying they are breaching the contract.   

    What a load of long winded nonsense.

    frank bonifacic
    Roof Shot

    Posts : 2470
    Join date : 2009-04-05

    Re: LaRoche Retiring

    Post by frank bonifacic on Fri Mar 18, 2016 11:01 pm

    tHe SicKo FANt wrote:
    frank bonifacic wrote:
    Father of Stan wrote:Frank

    I am not claiming to have the answers

    But I know how to ask the right questions

    The reasonable man standard still exists in a court of law doesn't it

    What is intriguing here is how unreasonable everything seems

    The reasonable man concept is a negligence issue.
     
    "Negligence" is doing something that a reasonable person wouldn't do or failing to do something that a reasonable person would do,  under similar circumstances.

    Contracts and the consequences are determined by the contract except in rare instances when a contract can be voided for other issues.


    Frank,

    I bring up reasonable man because based on what I know about this case, I do not think a reasonable man would jump to the conclusion that Kenny Williams all of a sudden decided to breach a term in the contract.

    My understanding is that Williams simply told Larouche to cut down the amount of time the kid spends in the clubhouse.  As far as I know, there was no instance where the kid was either thrown out or physically prevented from entering the contract.  SO WHERE'S THE BREACH

    You also mentioned mitigation.  Did Larouche mention his contract to Williams?  Did LaRouche call Rick Hahn?  Did LaRouche tell Robin Ventura?  I'm sure many of the guys know how to get in touch with Jerry Reinsdorf.  I also bet the White Sox have an HR and a Legal dept.  I would think a reasonable man that had such a kiddie clause agreement would be in touch with one of the above and politely suggest that Williams be informed/reminded of said agreement if he wishes to avoid legal action.  SO WHERE'S THE BREACH

    Now one thing I really don't have an answer to is if LaRouche is allowed to unretired and play 2016 under his current contract.  I hope it doesn't happen, but given the growing stink, it would not surprise me if it did

    Politely and reasonable yours
    THE KARK

    Mitigation has NOTHING to do with whether or not thee is a breach of contract. Mitigation is an issue ONLY as to damages.
    If you are fired by your manager (who is your supervisor and you have a contract), and he doesn't give you reasons which your contract provides, and you don't go to the overall boss, that doesnt wipe out the breach-even IF the big boss would have rescinded the firing.
    However, if you appeal the firing to the board of directors or to an arbitrator -and WIN- thye coud argue that if you had filed within one week instead of waiting a month, your damages would be less, that MIGHT result in a reduction of your damages.

    Guest
    Guest

    Re: LaRoche Retiring

    Post by Guest on Sat Mar 19, 2016 9:19 am

    Frank

    Clearly THE KARK is having trouble remembering his definitions from business law

    So let me give you a more relevant example than the one you gave

    In the 80's Astros reliever had as part of his contract that the Astros had to provide him with 96 boxes of orange jello

    Let's for the sake of argument say the deadline was opening day and the Astros failed to deliver.  

    Now assuming you deal with this type of law, would you advise the LaRouche approach?  

    Your Gentleman Friend
    THE KARK

    Sponsored content

    Re: LaRoche Retiring

    Post by Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Sat Oct 21, 2017 12:35 pm