I'd sue Jordan.

[gift]

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.

But the only kind of agreement that Jordan and the Mavs could possibly agree to, is one that is collectively bargained and could not exist without collectively bargained league rules. Everything about the contract/agreement is dependent on league rules. It would be different if somehow Jordan was exempt from union/league relationships and qualified for a different type of contract, one that he verbally agreed to. However, the only type of contract that he could verbally agree to, was one that was not valid at the time it was made.

*Again, I'm not a lawyer so I'm just making amateur arguments.

[Moranis]

(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)."

I think you could reasonably argue that Dallas can't reasonably rely on a promise to form a contract during a period in time when Dallas and Jordan can't actually sign a contract. 

[D.o.s.]

If nothing else this thread will hopefully be illustrative of the ways that people will go to bat over differences of opinion in a legal context.

[merkins]

Whatever legal merits you may think this has its a cry baby move and an extraordinarily bad idea.

[D.o.s.]

Whatever legal merits you may think this has its a cry baby move and an extraordinarily bad idea.

From Dallas or from DeAndre?

[Forza Juventus]

Mark Cuban obviously. You lost Mark get over it

[D.o.s.]

Mark Cuban obviously. You lost Mark get over it

I think there's some merit to thinking that Jordan should have bit the bullet and stayed with Dallas after agreeing to the deal even if he had some remorse afterwards.

Not that I agree with the viewpoint, necessarily, but that the thought process makes sense.

[Forza Juventus]

Mark Cuban obviously. You lost Mark get over it

I think there's some merit to thinking that Jordan should have bit the bullet and stayed with Dallas after agreeing to the deal even if he had some remorse afterwards.

Not that I agree with the viewpoint, necessarily, but that the thought process makes sense.

I think he should be able to do what he wants. After all he could get traded any time across the country without his consent.

[gift]

Basing the argument on a verbal agreement doesn't seem to work, since the agreement could not be binding at the time it was made.

How about this analogy:

Deandre Jordan is sitting in a long traffic line while the Cuban is trying to pull out across Jordan's lane and into the opposite lane. Cuban can't see the traffic beyond the line that is backed up in front of him. But Jordan leaves space for Cuban to pull out and waves him by. Cuban trusts that Jordan is not waving him into an oncoming truck that can't see Cuban attempting to pull out. Cuban pulls out in front of an oncoming vehicle and Jordan looks down at his phone and texts his teammates as Cuban and the oncoming vehicle crash.

Does Cuban suffer damages? Yes. Did he enter into a binding agreement with Jordan? No. Is Jordan partly responsible for damages? I personally don't know.

This analogy bypasses the binding agreement element and gets straight to the actions of Jordan leading to the damages to Cuban. Is there some way to sue Jordan for the damages without needing to rely on the fact that there was a verbal agreement? Is it all just Cuban taking a risk based on unreliable information or communication?

[merkins]

Whatever legal merits you may think this has its a cry baby move and an extraordinarily bad idea.

From Dallas or from DeAndre?

For Dallas/Cuban to sue Jordan as this thread states.  Maybe Cuban shouldn't have been so quick to get out there lauding the agreement and understood the player a bit better to know where his head was on this.  Have previous reneged upon verbal agreements resulted in a player being sued? Boozer comes to mind.  I'd hate to see Cuban sacrifice his persona chasing something he cannot change.  Jordan is gone, move on.

[MBunge]

(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)."

I think you could reasonably argue that Dallas can't reasonably rely on a promise to form a contract during a period in time when Dallas and Jordan can't actually sign a contract.

Except the league offices always permit such promises to be made and make no effort to prevent such negotiations from occurring.  Given that the league DID specifically go out of its way to stop the previous informal practice of teams trading a guy away, the new team waiving that guy and then he resigns with his old team, you could make a reasonable argument the league has authorized and endorsed these promises and negotiations, de facto if not de jure.

Mike

[LooseCannon]

(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)."

I think you could reasonably argue that Dallas can't reasonably rely on a promise to form a contract during a period in time when Dallas and Jordan can't actually sign a contract.

Except the league offices always permit such promises to be made and make no effort to prevent such negotiations from occurring.  Given that the league DID specifically go out of its way to stop the previous informal practice of teams trading a guy away, the new team waiving that guy and then he resigns with his old team, you could make a reasonable argument the league has authorized and endorsed these promises and negotiations, de facto if not de jure.

Mike

The CBA explicitly lists promises among the forms of unauthorized transactions/agreements that teams and players are not allowed to enter into outside of the confines of the CBA.  The CBA explicitly bans agreements during the moratorium.  The league permits negotiations during the moratorium.  It permits non-binding promises.  It does not permit binding promises.

Basically, the CBA permits gentleman's agreements.  You can't sue someone for not being a gentleman.

[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.

"
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)."

I think you could reasonably argue that Dallas can't reasonably rely on a promise to form a contract during a period in time when Dallas and Jordan can't actually sign a contract.

Except the league offices always permit such promises to be made and make no effort to prevent such negotiations from occurring.  Given that the league DID specifically go out of its way to stop the previous informal practice of teams trading a guy away, the new team waiving that guy and then he resigns with his old team, you could make a reasonable argument the league has authorized and endorsed these promises and negotiations, de facto if not de jure.

Mike

The CBA explicitly lists promises among the forms of unauthorized transactions/agreements that teams and players are not allowed to enter into outside of the confines of the CBA.  The CBA explicitly bans agreements during the moratorium.  The league permits negotiations during the moratorium.  It permits non-binding promises.  It does not permit binding promises.

Basically, the CBA permits gentleman's agreements.  You can't sue someone for not being a gentleman.

Yes, exactly.

[GetLucky]

I got this what-if from someone and thought it was interesting.

What if Jordan told Dallas someting along the lines of, "I'll sign with Dallas if the Clippers don't give me a max contract/exactly what I want," but Cuban stopped listening after Dallas and confidently leaked info out. And what if Jordan didn't publicly correct it because he didn't want to get fined? I don't think it's likely, but it is possible.

[D.o.s.]

I got this what-if from someone and thought it was interesting.

What if Jordan told Dallas someting along the lines of, "I'll sign with Dallas if the Clippers don't give me a max contract/exactly what I want," but Cuban stopped listening after Dallas and confidently leaked info out. And what if Jordan didn't publicly correct it because he didn't want to get fined? I don't think it's likely, but it is possible.

Have you seen this?
http://deadspin.com/a-sure-why-not-theory-explains-why-the-mavs-might-lose-1716605439