I'd sue Jordan.

[danglertx]

I know I'm going to take a hit for this, one because I am a lawyer, and two because people hate lawyers and sports, but I think Cuban should sue Jordan, the Clippers, Doc Rivers personally, and Ballmer personally, as well as the NBA for allowing the transaction.

Contracts can't be signed until the 9th.  I'd understand Jordan's point if that was a cooling down period so people didn't do anything stupid, but it isn't, it is a League issue for salary cap purposes.

There is a common law principle of verbal contracts which are contracts.  They are not less of contracts than signed contracts, just harder to prove.  Just like common law marriages are no less valid than any other marriage with a license, just harder to prove.  They still have the same rights and obligations.

I don't think proving there was a verbal contract here is an issue.  The issue becomes one of detrimental reliance.  Were the Mavs hurt by detrimentally relying on Jordan's verbal contract.  I'd have to say yes, and I think most others would say yes. 

The hard part, and this is where lawyers come in, is proving damages.  Normally, damages are the price it takes to fix the issue created by your detrimental reliance.  Here, it isn't defined.  Sure there are incidental expenses to finding a replacement player but those will largely be offset by the fact that a replacement player will cost less, since there aren't any available players at his position and ability.  It really becomes an extremely interesting legal issue of what damages mean in monetary numbers of  the value of a specific athletes worth and the missed opportunity of trying for another player who since committed elsewhere.

So, that covers Jordan.  But what about the others?  Once you establish there was a verbal contract, and it was widely reported and the Clips even accepted there was a verbal contract and stopped their pursuit of DeAndre until Jordan said he was having mixed feelings, there is a tort called tortuous interference of contract.  That contract doesn't have to be written, it can be verbal.  The reason it usually isn't verbal is because it is practicably impossible to know as a third party two people have a verbal contract and even harder to prove.

Here, it is pretty obvious that Rivers, Ballmer, the Clippers and the NBA knew there was a verbal contract between the Mavs and Jordan.  I don't think that is hard to prove at all.  The fact that they are actively interfering with that contract is an unbelievably awesome legal argument as it relates to sports. 

Again though, proving they are tortfeasers  isn't the hard part, but defining and assigning damages. 

Like I said, I'm a lawyer and find these questions fascinating so I'd sue to find out the answers.  Whether Cuban finds it as interesting and money worthy would be a totally different matter.  While legally it is awesome, businesswise it might not be the best course of action.

[D.o.s.]

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.

[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

[celticpride17]

I hope cuban does sue the jordan and the clippers, the league should give the mavs the clippers  1st round draft pick at the very least !

[hodgy03038]

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.

Why would suing the player not be worthwhile? Take some of his new money and give it to the lawyer that takes the case. You are right Dangler - most of us hate lawyers!

[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.

[D.o.s.]

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.

Why would suing the player not be worthwhile? Take some of his new money and give it to the lawyer that takes the case. You are right Dangler - most of us hate lawyers!

You can't see any potential situations where having the precedent of a team suing a player for having a change of heart about his future playing situation while in free agency would have a negative effect on the NBA?

Really?

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.

Right, and that comes down to whether or not the verbal agreement constitutes a contract and how that works under the rules of the CBA re: contract negotiations, allegations of tampering and the like, no?

[Evantime34]

Now, I'm not a lawyer, but I'm pretty sure there is no basis for a suit.

DJ verbally agreed to a deal during a part of the offseason in which no valid contracts can be signed per the CBA. You can't sue someone for not honoring an agreement that wasn't legally valid until after the 9th.

I don't think their verbal agreement was binding because it was during the moratorium which states that no moves can be made. To me it is similar to someone agreeing to a contract to do something illegal, it isn't binding because it isn't a legal contract.

[Evantime34]

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.

[manl_lui]

I bet that will happen! Cuban must be FLAMING right about now

[danglertx]

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? 

[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.

[playdream]

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

This
You don't sue someone just because you are a lawyer
I think that's why people dislike lawyers

[Forza Juventus]

I know I'm going to take a hit for this, one because I am a lawyer, and two because people hate lawyers and sports, but I think Cuban should sue Jordan, the Clippers, Doc Rivers personally, and Ballmer personally, as well as the NBA for allowing the transaction.

Contracts can't be signed until the 9th.  I'd understand Jordan's point if that was a cooling down period so people didn't do anything stupid, but it isn't, it is a League issue for salary cap purposes.

There is a common law principle of verbal contracts which are contracts.  They are not less of contracts than signed contracts, just harder to prove.  Just like common law marriages are no less valid than any other marriage with a license, just harder to prove.  They still have the same rights and obligations.

I don't think proving there was a verbal contract here is an issue.  The issue becomes one of detrimental reliance.  Were the Mavs hurt by detrimentally relying on Jordan's verbal contract.  I'd have to say yes, and I think most others would say yes. 

The hard part, and this is where lawyers come in, is proving damages.  Normally, damages are the price it takes to fix the issue created by your detrimental reliance.  Here, it isn't defined.  Sure there are incidental expenses to finding a replacement player but those will largely be offset by the fact that a replacement player will cost less, since there aren't any available players at his position and ability.  It really becomes an extremely interesting legal issue of what damages mean in monetary numbers of  the value of a specific athletes worth and the missed opportunity of trying for another player who since committed elsewhere.

So, that covers Jordan.  But what about the others?  Once you establish there was a verbal contract, and it was widely reported and the Clips even accepted there was a verbal contract and stopped their pursuit of DeAndre until Jordan said he was having mixed feelings, there is a tort called tortuous interference of contract.  That contract doesn't have to be written, it can be verbal.  The reason it usually isn't verbal is because it is practicably impossible to know as a third party two people have a verbal contract and even harder to prove.

Here, it is pretty obvious that Rivers, Ballmer, the Clippers and the NBA knew there was a verbal contract between the Mavs and Jordan.  I don't think that is hard to prove at all.  The fact that they are actively interfering with that contract is an unbelievably awesome legal argument as it relates to sports. 

Again though, proving they are tortfeasers  isn't the hard part, but defining and assigning damages. 

Like I said, I'm a lawyer and find these questions fascinating so I'd sue to find out the answers.  Whether Cuban finds it as interesting and money worthy would be a totally different matter.  While legally it is awesome, businesswise it might not be the best course of action.

lol

[35Lewis]

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.

Thats preposterous, everyone knows KMarts are a myth and don't actually exist.