I'd sue Jordan.

[danglertx]

This is really interesting: my assumption was that the Mavericks don't have much of a leg to stand on. I know Cuban's brother tweeted out something about Tortuous interference, but if (as reported) it was DeAndre who initiated bailing on Dallas, who are they going to sue? The player? that hardly seems worthwhile.

A contract is a contract.  If Jordan wants out of his contract it doesn't give a third party the right to interfere with it.  Because Coke wants out of its contract with Walmart, it doesn't give KMart the right to interfere with it.  It has no bearing at all.

There is no contract though, because contracts can't be agreed to during the moratorium.

First off, contracts are agreed to all the time during the moratorium.  I think that is obvious from just watching these forums from July 1-8th.  Confusing agreed to with signed and becoming official.  If the NBA really didn't want players and teams coming to agreements in the moratorium they would stop all these terms from being announced and reported.

That is what the League says about signing the contracts.  You are confusing league rules with common law.  The League says a contract isn't official until July 9th.  That doesn't mean teams and players can't have verbal agreements that while the League may not recognize them as valid, a court would.  Maybe the League won't enforce verbal contracts, but a Court can award damages regardless of what a League might want. 

[RMO]

1. What about the statute of frauds? Wouldn't this contract have to be in writing?

2. Verbal contracts before July 9 violate the CBA. Beyond estoppel arguments, wouldn't Cuban be admitting to circumventing league rules and subjecting himself to punishment?;

3. Wouldn't this be heard in arbitration, rather than in the courts? Aren't the arbitrators bound by league rules?

A lawsuit seems frivolous to me, and dangerous to the team.

That's what I was coming on here to ask.  Does Promissory Estoppel come into play?  You could argue that the Mavs stopped going after other free agents (so their action is no action) when Jordan made a verbal commitment to them.  I guess it would be impossible to prove whether or not they could've gotten a free agent had they kept trying.  I'm not a lawyer but would be curious to know.

I agree any lawsuit is unlikely and would be frivolous on the Mavs part.  It is an interesting conversation though.

[Granath]

There no basis for a lawsuit and it won't happen anyway.

(1) Since players could not reach a final agreement during this time, there is no basis for such a lawsuit. If you can't reach a binding final agreement due to the league rules, you can't sue on the basis of NOT reaching a binding final agreement.

(2) Even if Dallas had a decent case, Dallas would have a much harder time attracting future Free Agents if they sued Jordan. It would be counterproductive in the long term even if they won.

(3) It would be frowned upon by the NBA and the other owners. While Cuban doesn't care if he gets fined $50k by the commish, he will care if his suit somehow threatens the profit stream of the other NBA owners.

(4) If they sue Jordan, how much of a disruption do you think he'd be on a team that he didn't want to be on that sued him and forced him to appear. $80m is enough "**** you" money so that he could dog it, be a disruption, get paid and not have to worry about his future. If Vin Baker could collect all of that money from the Celtics while he was a drunken bum, I'm sure Jordan being a malcontent would be able to collect while being a pain in the ass.

[danglertx]

1. What about the statute of frauds? Wouldn't this contract have to be in writing?

2. Verbal contracts before July 9 violate the CBA. Beyond estoppel arguments, wouldn't Cuban be admitting to circumventing league rules and subjecting himself to punishment?;

3. Wouldn't this be heard in arbitration, rather than in the courts? Aren't the arbitrators bound by league rules?

A lawsuit seems frivolous to me, and dangerous to the team.

As per 1.  yes but not for detrimental reliance.  You aren't suing to honor the contract, you are suing for damages due to your reliance on a verbal promise/agreement.

2.  if verbal agreements violate the CBA rules, how are they all being announced.  Jordan came out and said he was joining the Mavs.  Again, this isn't CBA rules, it is common law detrimental reliance.

3.  I'm not sure what the arbitration agreements between the teams are.  Generally, I've seen that if you want to get around an arbitration agreement you can because they are usually boilerplate and never intended for the purpose they are being used for.  But for arguments sake, lets say they go to arbitration, then what?  Maybe they win maybe not. 

[TheTruthFot18]

1. What about the statute of frauds? Wouldn't this contract have to be in writing?

2. Verbal contracts before July 9 violate the CBA. Beyond estoppel arguments, wouldn't Cuban be admitting to circumventing league rules and subjecting himself to punishment?;

3. Wouldn't this be heard in arbitration, rather than in the courts? Aren't the arbitrators bound by league rules?

A lawsuit seems frivolous to me, and dangerous to the team.

As per 1.  yes but not for detrimental reliance.  You aren't suing to honor the contract, you are suing for damages due to your reliance on a verbal promise/agreement.

2.  if verbal agreements violate the CBA rules, how are they all being announced.  Jordan came out and said he was joining the Mavs.  Again, this isn't CBA rules, it is common law detrimental reliance.

3.  I'm not sure what the arbitration agreements between the teams are.  Generally, I've seen that if you want to get around an arbitration agreement you can because they are usually boilerplate and never intended for the purpose they are being used for.  But for arguments sake, lets say they go to arbitration, then what?  Maybe they win maybe not.

[Roy H.]

(1) Since players could not reach a final agreement during this time, there is no basis for such a lawsuit. If you can't reach a binding final agreement due to the league rules, you can't sue on the basis of reaching a binding final agreement.

You can't have a binding verbal contract in Texas under the circumstances, either.  All contracts that can't be fully performed within one year must be in writing.  This is known as the "statute of frauds". 

If Mark Cuban tried to argue that it was an equitable issue, rather than a contractual one, the defense would rightfully argue that Cuban had no basis to substantially rely upon Jordan's agreement to terms, because under league rules there can be no binding contracts until after July 9.  Courts -- let alone arbitrators -- won't enforce a contract in equity that violates written rules the parties are bound by.

[Roy H.]

1. What about the statute of frauds? Wouldn't this contract have to be in writing?

2. Verbal contracts before July 9 violate the CBA. Beyond estoppel arguments, wouldn't Cuban be admitting to circumventing league rules and subjecting himself to punishment?;

3. Wouldn't this be heard in arbitration, rather than in the courts? Aren't the arbitrators bound by league rules?

A lawsuit seems frivolous to me, and dangerous to the team.

As per 1.  yes but not for detrimental reliance.  You aren't suing to honor the contract, you are suing for damages due to your reliance on a verbal promise/agreement.

2.  if verbal agreements violate the CBA rules, how are they all being announced.  Jordan came out and said he was joining the Mavs.  Again, this isn't CBA rules, it is common law detrimental reliance.

3.  I'm not sure what the arbitration agreements between the teams are.  Generally, I've seen that if you want to get around an arbitration agreement you can because they are usually boilerplate and never intended for the purpose they are being used for.  But for arguments sake, lets say they go to arbitration, then what?  Maybe they win maybe not.

I think you're overthinking this.  The scenario is a fairly easy exam question at a Tier 4 law school. 

(I kid, I kid.)

Cuban will bluster, but he won't sue because, 1) he couldn't win, and 2) he would be admitting under oath to violating the CBA, which would bring sanctions.

[D.o.s.]

They don't really have laws in Texas anyway so who knows.

I predict Ballmer and Cuban at dawn. blackshot pistols. 20 paces. Winner gets Jordan.

[Forza Juventus]

Mark Cuban is a blood sucking scumbag. Look at this video.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=cHpnEtWy1es

I've hated him ever since.

I hope he goes bankrupt, I hope his family deserts him, I hope he kills himself. Screw him. Hopefully Mark Cuban "learned a lesson" though.

[footey]

This is really interesting: my assumption was that the Mavericks don't have much of a leg to stand on. I know Cuban's brother tweeted out something about Tortuous interference, but if (as reported) it was DeAndre who initiated bailing on Dallas, who are they going to sue? The player? that hardly seems worthwhile.

A contract is a contract.  If Jordan wants out of his contract it doesn't give a third party the right to interfere with it.  Because Coke wants out of its contract with Walmart, it doesn't give KMart the right to interfere with it.  It has no bearing at all.

I thought KMart was retiring....

[Forza Juventus]

They don't really have laws in Texas anyway so who knows.

I predict Ballmer and Cuban at dawn. blackshot pistols. 20 paces. Winner gets Jordan.

They will probably execute Deandre like an animal. That's what they do there.

[gift]

Yeah, I don't see how it actually qualifies as a verbal contract given that both parties should understand that no contract, verbal or written, is actually allowed (therefore valid) during the moratorium.

Otherwise, I do think there might be something there, though I still think not worth trying to prove.*

*I am not a lawyer.

[LooseCannon]

This is really interesting: my assumption was that the Mavericks don't have much of a leg to stand on. I know Cuban's brother tweeted out something about Tortuous interference, but if (as reported) it was DeAndre who initiated bailing on Dallas, who are they going to sue? The player? that hardly seems worthwhile.

A contract is a contract.  If Jordan wants out of his contract it doesn't give a third party the right to interfere with it.  Because Coke wants out of its contract with Walmart, it doesn't give KMart the right to interfere with it.  It has no bearing at all.

There is no contract though, because contracts can't be agreed to during the moratorium.

First off, contracts are agreed to all the time during the moratorium.  I think that is obvious from just watching these forums from July 1-8th.  Confusing agreed to with signed and becoming official.  If the NBA really didn't want players and teams coming to agreements in the moratorium they would stop all these terms from being announced and reported.

That is what the League says about signing the contracts.  You are confusing league rules with common law.  The League says a contract isn't official until July 9th.  That doesn't mean teams and players can't have verbal agreements that while the League may not recognize them as valid, a court would.  Maybe the League won't enforce verbal contracts, but a Court can award damages regardless of what a League might want.

The league actually does work to stop announcements of tentative deals.  It does not allow team officials to openly discuss any agreements made during the moratorium and recently fined Mark Cuban for talking about signing Wesley Matthews and DeAndre Jordan.  They can't really do anything to stop agents from talking to reporters.  I think Jordan may not have actually said directly that he was going to Dallas.

If a verbal agreement during the moratorium is a contract, then it is is an illegal contract under the CBA and should be punished as a form of CBA circumvention, which could include voiding the contract, fining the Mavs, and taking away draft picks.  If you're Mark Cuban, do you really want to go down that road?

I don't think it is hard to accept that all negotiations during the moratorium are non-binding and to work under that caveat.

[danglertx]

(1) Since players could not reach a final agreement during this time, there is no basis for such a lawsuit. If you can't reach a binding final agreement due to the league rules, you can't sue on the basis of reaching a binding final agreement.

You can't have a binding verbal contract in Texas under the circumstances, either.  All contracts that can't be fully performed within one year must be in writing.  This is known as the "statute of frauds". 

If Mark Cuban tried to argue that it was an equitable issue, rather than a contractual one, the defense would rightfully argue that Cuban had no basis to substantially rely upon Jordan's agreement to terms, because under league rules there can be no binding contracts until after July 9.  Courts -- let alone arbitrators -- won't enforce a contract in equity that violates written rules the parties are bound by.

"
Promissory estoppel avoids the traditional statute of frauds when the alleged oral promise is to sign an existing document that satisfies the statute of frauds. See Nagle, 633 S.W.2d at 800 (discussing contract for sale of real estate provision of section 26.01); Exxon Corp. v. Breezevale Ltd., 82 S.W.3d 429, 438 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2002, pet. denied) (same); see also Birenbaum, 971 S.W.2d at 504 (promissory estoppel avoids statute of frauds only if oral promise “was to execute a document in existence that itself complied with the statute”; discussing statute of frauds formerly applicable to purchase of securities)."

[BitterJim]

The thing is, you can't actually come to an agreement with free agents during the moratorium, just discuss terms.  If Cuban sued and won, the Mavs would then be wide open for tampering punishments from the league (if they came to an agreement during a time when it is not allowed), which would likely be more severe

Basically, suing would be a lose-lose situation for Cuban, and only serve to p--- off the rest of the owners/the league

I disagree with the tampering issue.  Players and teams are allowed to iron out every detail of a contract.  They just can't sign it until the League knows its salary cap number.  Dont' they call it the legal tampering period?

He got fined for talking about having an agreement with Matthews+Jordan, so I'd have to assume they'd go further