Comments Thread For: Top Rank vs. Gamboa: The Fine Points of The Lawsuit

[hbstowe]

let the lawyers sort it out by the time they will Gamboa would be over the hill. he doesnt have the luxury of time. he screwed himself big time including his fans that made preparations to see the fight. imagine canceling airlines and hotel reservations and trying to get your fight tickets refunded...

[Atreyu Khalil]

Yes really.

[hbstowe]

just because the case is not winnable a lawyer wouldn't touch it. most of them are getting paid by the hour winning or losing.

[jbp23]

You're presuming that I am not aware of or familiar with the contract law. Where exactly did I mention law or lawsuit or lawyer in my post?

"What a minute, so Gamboa AGREED Verbally to the fight, he got an advance(who knows if he spent the advance) and Top Rank still doesnt have a fight contract with his name on it?"

I asked if "Gamboa only Verbally agreed, if he had an advance, and if Top Rank still holds no contract?"

Where in that post did you drum up your assumption from?

You mentioned contract which is enforced by contract law. I don't know how familiar you are with contract law, but you seem too concerned about a signature on the contract ("Top Rank still doesn't have a fight contract with his name on it"). If you were familiar with contract law you would not be harping on a signature so much.

[jbp23]

A mutual promise? A promise to perform?

Yeah? Prove it... I had a promise because you say I had a promise?

That doesnt work in court.. Its about what can be proven and nothing else matters.

You know how to prove Gamboa agreed to all those things?

A signature on a contract, or a taped phone call.

I am sorry this is too funny. Actually that is how contract law works and that's how it works in court. Promisor and Promisee is not just metaphor I picked out, its the foundation of all contracts. Someone has to be offered a promise and someone accepts it. How many of you took contract law in law school? Well I did. In court its proved by a preponderance of the evidence. Gamboa's acceptance of the promise can be done by several ways, verbal, signing, accepting payment. A person does not go into court regarding a contractual dispute and say I have no idea about any of this. (my word against his) This is when he would be made a fool of for example, the payment of $70,000. The question that will be asked, is it reasonable to believe that TR just gave Gamboa 70,000 for no reason at all or was it given to him to fullfill the contract. Plus regarding whether he signed or not, its well known that fighters do not always sign the contract immediately. So the court would go with what is accepted practice in the industry and if its accepted practice to agree to a fight, but not sign immediately then that will not be an issue.

Gamboa's defenses will not be no I never heard of this fight or anything regarding it it will be either mistake, durress, or misrepresentation. He would best go with misrepresentation.

[jbp23]

Who says the advance was for the fight? Is their a contract for that 70K loan? What if Gamboa says that Arum just gave him the money because he's such a nice rich ***ish guy that loves to give?

Who's telling the truth?

Thats why its based on the "reasonable person" standard. The question asked is this: Is it reasonable to believe or would a reasonable person believe that Arum just gave Gamboa 70k because he was being a nice rich ***ish guy? Thats the standard that needs to be met. Is it reasonable to believe that the advance of 70k was for the Rios fight? Would a reasonable person believe Gamboa accepted this 70k specifically for the Rios fight? This is when TR brings out paperwork, witnesses that participated in discussions, etc.

[CubanGuyNYC]

Thats why its based on the "reasonable person" standard. The question asked is this: Is it reasonable to believe or would a reasonable person believe that Arum just gave Gamboa 70k because he was being a nice rich ***ish guy? Thats the standard that needs to be met. Is it reasonable to believe that the advance of 70k was for the Rios fight? Would a reasonable person believe Gamboa accepted this 70k specifically for the Rios fight? This is when TR brings out paperwork, witnesses that participated in discussions, etc.

All this talk of what will hold up in court is interesting, but the fact remains that no one here knows all the exact details regarding this case. If you indeed attended law school, I'm sure you'll agree that knowing all the facts is essential. Most people here are assuming that Top Rank wouldn't make an error of any kind regarding fight contracts. It's no less reasonable to believe that Gamboa's team might've found an exploitable issue in TR's handling of the affair. Time will tell.

And I agree, the claim that Arum forked over 70k out of the kindness of his heart would probably go over like a lead balloon in court.

[jbp23]

First thing you learn in law school is that the law doesn't protect the ******, or the lazy.


Unless Gamboa can argue he was drunk, or he was forced to sign it under duress, there's nothing he can do. . . He has more than enough experience with promotors at the time he signed the two year extension (IF he did sign it). . . I don't see how the negligence defense will be applicable here, especially with Arum getting him a 1.2 million dollar payday on HBO (what other fighters at his weight, and with his experience get that kind of pay)? Of course none of us have seen the contract, so we can't even begin to talk about whether or not it is valid. He DOES have a beast of a lawyer, though, and I doubt his lawyer would advise him to tell TR to basically phuck themselves unless he thought they had something pretty solid. But on the same hand, Arum is a saavy lawyer with over four decades of experience at this, so I don't see how he wouldn't have anything less than an airtight contract.

BUt I absolutely want to see Gamboa fighting again ASAP, so Im 100% on his side, and I'll fight for him anyway possible to see this shyt get settled up with the quickness.

There are several affirmative defenses used in contract law. Duress, which you mentioned is one, mistake- basically means you were mistaken as to terms of said contract, it comes in forms unilateral mistake where only one party is mistaken about terms, mutual mistake- both parties are mistaken about terms; incapacity- which is reserved for minors or the mentally ill, being drunk does not count because getting drunk is a voluntary act, unconscionability- which means that the terms are too one-sided, misrepresentation- means false info given to and based on that false info you entered into the contract. Negligence is not used in contract law.

Gamboa's best bet is assert the mistake defense. Duress will not work in this case, neither will unconscionability- because the terms are fair, now if Gamboa was only receiving say 50k or since he is receiving 1.1m and TR received 80% then he could raise this as a defense, but this is not the case. Misrepresentation could be used but more info is needed.

[Light_Speed]

Now all Top Rank has to do is prove these allegations which won't be easy. And they have made mistakes before, remember the whole Margarito license/NYC commission fiasco? They have a history of going ahead with the promotion even if the paperwork is not ironed out.

[check hook]

I am sorry this is too funny. Actually that is how contract law works and that's how it works in court. Promisor and Promisee is not just metaphor I picked out, its the foundation of all contracts. Someone has to be offered a promise and someone accepts it. How many of you took contract law in law school? Well I did. In court its proved by a preponderance of the evidence. Gamboa's acceptance of the promise can be done by several ways, verbal, signing, accepting payment. A person does not go into court regarding a contractual dispute and say I have no idea about any of this. (my word against his) This is when he would be made a fool of for example, the payment of $70,000. The question that will be asked, is it reasonable to believe that TR just gave Gamboa 70,000 for no reason at all or was it given to him to fullfill the contract. Plus regarding whether he signed or not, its well known that fighters do not always sign the contract immediately. So the court would go with what is accepted practice in the industry and if its accepted practice to agree to a fight, but not sign immediately then that will not be an issue.

Gamboa's defenses will not be no I never heard of this fight or anything regarding it it will be either mistake, durress, or misrepresentation. He would best go with misrepresentation.

I only did one law unit at university, though i assume US and Australian contract law would be fairly similar across most jurisdictions given they are based on the same common law system from UK. It's not necessary to have signed an actual legal document/contract to prove that a contract exists. All you need is an offer and acceptance of the offers exact terms. If they can prove the 70k was paid to Yuri as consideration for his promise to fight then TR would have legal recourse as Yuri failed to live up to his end of the deal. Anyone completed more than one law unit that can shed more light???

The only legal way i see out of this for Gamboa is if he can prove the terms of the offer he accepted were subsequently changed after his acceptance.