Since it's a business, I don't see why demanding a trade doesn't fall within the bounds of business options for players. The team can just refuse the demand and not trade the player. The player then either refuses to play or he plays. Or the team accepts the demand and makes the trade. Simple.
Part of legitimate business is honoring contracts.
That just isn't true. Sometimes the best business decision is breaking a contract. As long as you pay for the consequences it is a perfectly legitimate business practice. Similar to bankruptcy and any number of other tactics to avoid doing something legally.
"Paying for the consequences" meaning damages, attorneys fees, loss of reputation, etc. In other words, the business version of a "Judas".
Nope. It isn't a "traitor" to break a contract because a contract does not equal loyalty and there are actual consequences for breaking a contract that are in fact written into the contract. Whereas if the relationship is one of loyalty there are no such consequences. Just about the only situation where both a contract and loyalty exist is a marriage. But a marriage is the exception not the rule.
Wilful breach includes punitive damages in many jurisdictions. Punitive, as in punishment? Why? Because intentional breach of contract is regarded as a bad thing, and a violation of the covenant of good faith involved in every contract.
Aren't you an attorney who handles contracts regularly? You should know this stuff, and I expect that you do.
Yeah, which is why I know that contracts are broken all of the time, sometimes intentionally, but more times unintentionally, but that is why contracts have default and breach provisions because it is foreseeable that a contract will in fact be broken. Sometimes it is the best thing for a business to do. And I have no idea what jurisdictions you practice in, but none of the ones I've ever come across allow for punitive damages for an intentional breach of contract. Many contracts provide for attorney fees on a breach, but that is nowhere near the same thing as punitive damages.
Delaware allows punitive damages for wilful breach, for instance. I'm sure you're aware of why Delaware is relevant for corporate contracts?
http://courts.delaware.gov/opinions/download.aspx?ID=163480"In general, a plaintiff cannot recover punitive damages for breach of contract unless the conduct also amounts independently to a tort. In Pressman, the Delaware Supreme Court held that breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, in an employment relationship, was not an exception to the rule against punitive damages in breach of contract cases. Here, Landry has alleged only (1) breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; and (2) breach of contract. Landry has not alleged any conduct by his employer, such as conversion, that would amount independently to a tort. Accordingly, punitive damages would not be available for any misconduct that could be found by a jury."
In other words, only if the breach of contract is so egregious that it independently rises to the level of an intentional tort for which punitive damages could be awarded (such as conversion), will a breach of contract allow for the recovery of punitive damages. A breach of contract, even if intentional, does not afford punitive damages except in those rare circumstances that create a tort, even in the great state of Delaware.