Harry Greb in 1919

[billeau2]

Just a few things to help this even further, Billeau.


1. The concept of "consideration" is certainly not foreign to contracts. One of the first things that I found interesting when looking over trials about contracts. Usually in the court cases I've looked at, consideration is a mere $1. That's what was often given, AND ACCEPTED, to bind a contract.

Dempsey never ever claimed that he was tricked into taking the $10. In fact, he stated that on the very day that he accepted the $10 he was due $125,000. Now why anyone would accept $10 AND sign a legally binding document ON THE EXACT SAME DAY that he claims he is due $125,000 is beyond me. No one with a brain would do that, and I don't believe Dempsey to be nearly that daft.

One thing I can say about Dempsey is that he certainly was not the most honest man, as he has been caught cold in obvious lies like, "I never drew the color line." But even he didn't lie about the $10. He simply said he was owed more money. But the contract didn't stipulate that, and the amount he claims he was owed upon signing is surely enough to give people pause about believing him when he signed and took $10 instead.

What happened here was Dempsey's defense was that there was no contract at all. He tried to argue this because his prior dealing with Fitzsimmons turned into nothing since Fitzsimmons bounced a check to him (this is actually where the $125,000 comes from, NOT from the CAC). So Dempsey argued there was no contract to transfer since the contract that Fitz transferred should have been voided with the bounced check, and this would allow Dempsey to get out of there being any contract to transfer to CAC. The court didn't buy it. Dempsey accepted the new terms and the court specifically said that his dealings with Fitz had nothing to do with this matter.

The contract was transferred over in a legal way, and Dempsey was obviously happy with it at the time. At some point, he changed his mind and made up an excuse (that hand nothing to do with the $10, and actually, nothing to do with the CAC) to get out of it.

People can debate why he wanted out of it, but the facts of what happened are there.




BINGO!!!! We do know when the money was to be delivered.

1. $10 for consideration to bind the contract.

2. $300,000 on August 5th. AND YOU CALLED IT...THE CONTRACT STIPULATED THAT DEMPSEY COULD KEEP THIS MONEY IF FOR SOME REASON THE FIGHT DIDN'T COME OFF. So even if he thought they couldn't come up wit the money, all he had to do was wait till Aug 5th and a court would have all they need for him to be $300,000 richer with no work if something fell through.

3. $500,000 to be given 10 days before the fight.

The Chicago Coliseum Club held up their end of the bargain. On August 5th, $300,000 was waiting for Dempsey. Of course, Dempsey didn't even wait for that date as he broke the contract a month earlier.

1. Not only is the concept of consideration "not Foreign" to contracts, you need it in a valid contract.

And yes...consideration can be just about anything of value.

Its interesting about the Fitz angle. Im thinking to myself and wondering if a bounced check would automatically invalidate consideration? I don't think so what do you think? So your renting a place from me and your check bounces...I can now rent the place to Queeny for twice the amount I contracted with you... Do I owe you a chance to make the check good? Or would I be in my rights to rent to Queeny?

[billeau2]

Reminds me of that joke by comedian Rich Vos "Wanna buy a dryer...door?" haha Or the one about the Polish guy in the desert carrying a car door who said he could just roll down the window when he got too hot.

I take my wife everywhere, but she always finds her way back.

"As a kid when I played Hide and Seek, everyone counted to ten, they asked me to count to 10,000."

[billeau2]

PS 198 3rd grade... Production of Agathat Christies "Ten Little Indians." Guess who was the judge?

[Willie Pep 229]

1. Not only is the concept of consideration "not Foreign" to contracts, you need it in a valid contract.

And yes...consideration can be just about anything of value.

Its interesting about the Fitz angle. Im thinking to myself and wondering if a bounced check would automatically invalidate consideration? I don't think so what do you think? So your renting a place from me and your check bounces...I can now rent the place to Queeny for twice the amount I contracted with you... Do I owe you a chance to make the check good? Or would I be in my rights to rent to Queeny?

I would say you are within your rights to rent to Queeny.

But it would be up to a judge to make the call. It is like an umpire calling balls and strikes, we don't know what the pitch was until the umpire actually makes the call, and he and only he has the power to decide.

I am arguing there is no correct answer to your question until a judge makes that decision.

Now to the judge:

Assuming Fitzsimmons did hand Dempsey a check for 60K and then it did bounce, is not Fitz guilty of misrepresentation, and would that not be enough to void the contract? It is implied in all contract negotiations that both parties act in good faith.

If Fitz knew that the check was no good and was hoping Dempsey would accept it at face value without insisting they take it to the bank for immediate cashing, I would say that Fitz was running a scam. But we can't know that.


The real scam may have been Fitz realizing he had nothing and then scammed the AC by selling them the contract.

In regards to any promise (or guarantee) that the contract would then make (on $300,000 or whatever amount) isn't that promise rendered nugatory by the fact that Fitz bounced the first check (acted in bad faith)?

Why would any reasonable person then expect Dempsey to accept any PROMISE/GUARANTEE of money from anyone associated with that contract?

Fitz selling it (legally or not) doesn't undo the original act of bad faith (bouncing the original check).

The mistake Dempsey made was not to sue Fitz or whoever bought the contract as soon as the original checked bounced. He should of immediately sued for release because Fitz acted in bad faith. Fitz misrepresented himself.

What Dempsey did do right was to see that he was involved with people who could not be trusted to fulfill the promises they made.

[Willie Pep 229]

"As a kid when I played Hide and Seek, everyone counted to ten, they asked me to count to 10,000."

Did that make you the murderer, or the guy the murderer used to fool the others by playing dead? Oops, Spoiler Alert!

[billeau2]

I would say you are within your rights to rent to Queeny.

But it would be up to a judge to make the call. It is like an umpire calling balls and strikes, we don't know what the pitch was until the umpire actually makes the call, and he and only he has the power to decide.

I am arguing there is no correct answer to your question until a judge makes that decision.

Now to the judge:

Assuming Fitzsimmons did hand Dempsey a check for 60K and then it did bounce, is not Fitz guilty of misrepresentation, and would that not be enough to void the contract? It is implied in all contract negotiations that both parties act in good faith.

If Fitz knew that the check was no good and was hoping Dempsey would accept it at face value without insisting they take it to the bank for immediate cashing, I would say that Fitz was running a scam. But we can't know that.


The real scam may have been Fitz realizing he had nothing and then scammed the AC by selling them the contract.

In regards to any promise (or guarantee) that the contract would then make (on $300,000 or whatever amount) isn't that promise rendered nugatory by the fact that Fitz bounced the first check (acted in bad faith)?

Why would any reasonable person then expect Dempsey to accept any PROMISE/GUARANTEE of money from anyone associated with that contract?

Fitz selling it (legally or not) doesn't undo the original act of bad faith (bouncing the original check).

The mistake Dempsey made was not to sue Fitz or whoever bought the contract as soon as the original checked bounced. He should of immediately sued for release because Fitz acted in bad faith. Fitz misrepresented himself.

What Dempsey did do right was to see that he was involved with people who could not be trusted to fulfill the promises they made.

Lets deal with the GENERAL first. Your quite possibly right regarding the binding nature of "accepting" something. In a rental situation, for example, if a landlord accepts a payment from a tenant it is considered binding. mortgages work the same way...eventually if you fall behind the company may not accept a payment and demand the account be brought up to no balance due.

Regarding the bounced check? again there may have been a stipulation in the contract, and remember that one makes an assumption that both parties want to complete the contract. Therefore it may just be that this bounce could be remedied. Also doesn't a ten spot sound about the cost to bounce a check? Maybe not in those days! lol.

[travestyny]

Good. Keep up the sources and lessen down on the insults. There's solid info in this thread so no need for taking the convo-level down.

Out of respect for you I've been trying to keep it above board. There's only so many slight and outright digs I can take, knowing that I've been only providing sources. I'll continue to try to keep it above board, tho.


As always, much much respect to you.

[travestyny]

1. Not only is the concept of consideration "not Foreign" to contracts, you need it in a valid contract.

And yes...consideration can be just about anything of value.

Its interesting about the Fitz angle. Im thinking to myself and wondering if a bounced check would automatically invalidate consideration? I don't think so what do you think? So your renting a place from me and your check bounces...I can now rent the place to Queeny for twice the amount I contracted with you... Do I owe you a chance to make the check good? Or would I be in my rights to rent to Queeny?

I think a bounced check very well could have invalidated the entire thing. I don't know for sure. The problem is the bounced check took place months before this contract was even signed. It had nothing to do with what happened in this case.

The bounced check was regarding Fitz in September 1925. The contract that was reviewed in court was signed March 1926. It was just Dempsey's lawyers excuse to get him out of the fight and it failed in court.

The court even stated specifically that the past dealings with Fitz had no bearing on the case.



From the case brief:

Certain agreements previously entered into by the defendant with one Floyd Fitzsimmons for a Dempsey-Wills boxing match were declared to be void and of no force and effect.

[travestyny]

I would say you are within your rights to rent to Queeny.

But it would be up to a judge to make the call. It is like an umpire calling balls and strikes, we don't know what the pitch was until the umpire actually makes the call, and he and only he has the power to decide.

I am arguing there is no correct answer to your question until a judge makes that decision.

Now to the judge:

Assuming Fitzsimmons did hand Dempsey a check for 60K and then it did bounce, is not Fitz guilty of misrepresentation, and would that not be enough to void the contract? It is implied in all contract negotiations that both parties act in good faith.

If Fitz knew that the check was no good and was hoping Dempsey would accept it at face value without insisting they take it to the bank for immediate cashing, I would say that Fitz was running a scam. But we can't know that.


The real scam may have been Fitz realizing he had nothing and then scammed the AC by selling them the contract.

In regards to any promise (or guarantee) that the contract would then make (on $300,000 or whatever amount) isn't that promise rendered nugatory by the fact that Fitz bounced the first check (acted in bad faith)?

Why would any reasonable person then expect Dempsey to accept any PROMISE/GUARANTEE of money from anyone associated with that contract?

Fitz selling it (legally or not) doesn't undo the original act of bad faith (bouncing the original check).

The mistake Dempsey made was not to sue Fitz or whoever bought the contract as soon as the original checked bounced. He should of immediately sued for release because Fitz acted in bad faith. Fitz misrepresented himself.

What Dempsey did do right was to see that he was involved with people who could not be trusted to fulfill the promises they made.

Then why did Dempsey sign a new contract 7 months after the bounced check?


Again, this had little to do with Fitz. It was an excuse by Dempsey and his lawyers. Fitz had his chance to make this fight and failed. The CAC stepped in and took over, upheld their end of the agreement, and Dempsey bailed out.

Here it is again.

Certain agreements previously entered into by the defendant with one Floyd Fitzsimmons for a Dempsey-Wills boxing match were declared to be void and of no force and effect.

The court saw right through that ruse. If Dempsey didn't want to fight due to Fitz bouncing a check in 1925, he wouldn't have signed a new contract in 1926.

[Rusty Tromboni]

Then why did Dempsey sign a new contract 7 months after the bounced check?


Again, this had little to do with Fitz. It was an excuse by Dempsey and his lawyers. Fitz had his chance to make this fight and failed. The CAC stepped in and took over, upheld their end of the agreement, and Dempsey bailed out.

Here it is again.



The court saw right through that ruse. If Dempsey didn't want to fight due to Fitz bouncing a check in 1925, he wouldn't have signed a new contract in 1926.

It's amazing (weird) the time and energy you've dedicated to researching and discussing the matter.

But you can't find the time to substantiate the claim that Wills was a "great fighter".