Clipping:Legal opinions of the League contract
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
 |
| Add a Clipping |
| Date | Wednesday, December 25, 1889 |
|---|---|
| Text | [from an interview of John M. Vanderslice] When we submitted a League contract to a certain leading lawyer at the Philadelphia bar, and explained matters to him, he snapped his fingers and said it was not worth the paper it was printed on. “Why,” said he, “where is the equivalent? Where is the consideration? This contract is all one-sided. The League claims the services of a player for an indefinite period. Can that player hold the League to that contract for an indefinite period also? No; it claims the right to discharge him on ten days' notice. On the one side the contract runs on forever, while on the other side it can be terminated on ten days' notice. Do you suppose any court will ever uphold such a contract? Never!” The Sporting Life December 25, 1889 [from an opinion by attorney David M. Newberger, given at Ward's request] The first clause, which refers to the right to reserve, is the most important of the two. If it can be said to be valid and binding the party of the second part may justly be termed to be in the absolute power and under the absolute control of the party of the first part; for under the clause the right to reserve if such exists at all, may be exercised at any time and under any circumstances, leaving the party of the second part to comply with the whim of the party of the first part in any and every particular, and shackling him to the disposition and power of the part of the first part, until such time as the party of the first part (if ever) exercise his so-called extraordinary right of privilege. The part of the second part, in the interim within the grasp of the other party, is debarred not only from securing employment, but even from obtaining his livelihood elsewhere. And if by the terms the ensuing season is about to arrive or has actually commenced, this extraordinary right or privilege has not bee exercised, the same state of affairs and condition of the party of the second part continues, and his opportunities to obtain employment in the business wherein he has been engaged, and has undoubtedly devoted many years to perfect himself, are lost. This would be the result of the clause under consideration if it could be successfully contended that the clause is valid, which contention, in my opinion, with the result on the enforcement of the clause, as stated, would be error. The clause is invalid and not binding (and I think it would not be so held), for the reason that a literal performance of it, if not impossible, would work a great injury and hardship to the party of the second part, and courts would refuse its enforcement. The Sporting Life December 25, 1889 [from George F. Duyster, attorney for John B. Day] The system has been to have contracts for one year ahead, in order that the several clubs might depend on at least fourteen players the following year. Our position, therefore, is that we have a contract with them for the season of 1890, after which they are free to do as they please. It would also be well to remember that a majority of these Brotherhood players have gained their reputations and acquired their skill while drawing very large salaries in the employ of the clubs which they are now using every effort to damage. With the exercise of their option the club holds a player for two years at the outside, and how many hundreds of thousands of good and reputable men would consider a hardship to contract to give their services for two years in a business which is neither particularly hard or disagreeable, which has in it the element of popularity, and which would give the men six months of the year to do as they please, and salaries ranging from $2500 to $5000 a year? The question of hardship has nothing to do with the case. I never knew of an instance where the court would entertain such a plea in cases of a similar kind. The Sporting Life December 25, 1889 [from an interview of “ex-Judge Howland, counsel for Ward] ...what does the word “reserve” mean in this particular? Why, absolutely nothing. In the first place, the player contracts to play for seven months, and no longer. That breaks all the effects of the reserve clause. Then again, the word “reserve” was not placed in the contracts so that an option could be had on a player's services for more than a year, and it was so explained by the magnates to the players at the time of signing. Is it a hardship to be held for two years? It is a very great hardship, indeed, if you sign to do one thing and you are compelled to do another, just as the League magnates want the players to do. It's a big mistake to say that the reserve clause means the holding of a player for two years. It is a well known fact that there have been players held for a longer time, and not asked to sign a contract, either. I express no fears of the result of any application made to the court for an injunction after it is in full possession of the facts. The Sporting Life December 25, 1889 |
| Source | The Sporting Life |
| Tags | |
| Warning | |
| Comment | Edit with form to add a comment |
| Query | Edit with form to add a query |
| Submitted by | Richard Hershberger |
| Origin | Initial Hershberger Clippings |
Comments
<comments voting="Plus" />