Comments Thread For: Hearn: Ruiz Can't Moan About Neutral Venue For Joshua Rematch

[andocom]

No no no... I never said as a statement the words you put into my mouth.

Yeah, no. Here is what you said and I quoted it in my reply, I didn't put words in your mouth:

2) A contract is voidable when, for whatever reason, it does not make sense to fufill it, or it cannot be fufilled because of legal conditions. In this case, Ruiz had something that became sufficiently valuable that it was not in his best interest to fufill the rematch clause. The consideration for Ruiz performing was unrealistic.

You said a contract is voidable when it does not make sense to fulfill it, and in this case Ruiz had something that became sufficiently valuable that it was not in his best interest to fulfill the rematch clause. These are your words and they are flat out wrong.

Learn the difference between a voidable contract and paying damages for breaching a contract (your renter example). Andy could breach his contract and suffer the consequences, that is not voiding a contract.

God knows what you are talking about wrt arms length in this situation, Ruiz has independent representation and management, unless you think Hearn and Haymon are in collusion and influenced Andy sign the rematch clause.

[Ake-Dawg]

I literally said Ruiz was getting more money in my post you quoted. Learn to read.

How would this fight be worth $80 to $100M. Well $40M site fee, plus dazn, UK PPV, Mexican rights etc obviously.

Take out the site fee, you don't think this fight is worth $40M globally, really?

No. I don't. Based mostly on what time the fight will air (affecting UK ppv and Mexican rights money which will be minimal anyway) , DAZN not paying much for a fight Eddie refused to let them have for their US growth.

The whole reason Joshua was in the US fighting was Hearns acknowledgment that fights that make $100M or more happen in the US. His has said as much. The site fee for a fight in places like Dubai Quatar and Diriyah is huge because they know that promoters have to sacrifice other revenue streams to have the fight there.

[Chrismart]

There is no such thing as home advantage to an American when fighting a none American in America.

You gotta laugh at these goons.

I remember when Ward tried to say that his fight with Froch was neutral ground because his flight time across American states was pretty much the same as Froch's from England

[_Rexy_]

I swear like half the time Eddie talks about a non-Matchroom fighter I wanna smack him upside his f#cking head & tell him to show fighters some f#cking respect. I thought Bob insulted a lot of fighters, but I'm pretty sure Eddie has lapped Bob since he came to the US. Always with the negging & insults & condescending remarks all the damn time.

And he can't understand why nobody will sign with him.


"I offered these guys more than they made! and the ****** *******s won't just put their signature on the paper! what's wrong with you ****** *******s! sign with me for more money!! IDIOTS!!"

[billeau2]

Yeah, no. Here is what you said and I quoted it in my reply, I didn't put words in your mouth:



You said a contract is voidable when it does not make sense to fulfill it, and in this case Ruiz had something that became sufficiently valuable that it was not in his best interest to fulfill the rematch clause. These are your words and they are flat out wrong.

Learn the difference between a voidable contract and paying damages for breaching a contract (your renter example). Andy could breach his contract and suffer the consequences, that is not voiding a contract.

God knows what you are talking about wrt arms length in this situation, Ruiz has independent representation and management, unless you think Hearn and Haymon are in collusion and influenced Andy sign the rematch clause.

yes God does know and you don't. Yes my words clearly state when a contract is ridiculous that, there CAN at times be a cause where the contract is essentially voidable. The condition in this case is that Ruiz's rematch clause could not be held together by the strength of the contract. It as obvious to anyone that Ruiz would renegotiate the contract, which he did BTW.

conceptually this situation is more akin to "voidable" than a breach. Here is a basic definition for a voidable:

/The Indian Contract Act, 1872// Free Consent:- voidable contract, unlike a void contract, is a valid contract which may be either affirmed or rejected at the option of one of the parties. At most, one party to the contract is bound. The unbound party may repudiate (reject) the contract, at which time the contract becomes void.

Typical grounds for a contract being voidable include coercion, undue influence, misrepresentation or fraud. A contract made by a minor is often voidable, but a minor can only avoid a contract during his or her minority status and for a reasonable time after he reaches the age of majority. After a reasonable period of time, the contract is deemed to be ratified and cannot be avoided.[1] Other examples would be real estate contracts, lawyer contracts, etc.

Now I know that maybe this definition can be disputed, but it also makes more sense than paying damages because it was never going to get to that point.

Pay attention and you may learn to think for yourself: In actual point of fact, in a court of law there might be a case made that Ruiz was under duress, or not, does not matter... But in reality we all know that Ruiz did not have any options when he signed that contract IF he wanted that fight. We also know that unless Ruiz was ridiculous the contract clause was going to be renegotiated, thats a fact. Why? Because the contract as written did not reward Ruiz sufficiently...period.

We also knew that Ruiz was not claiming he would not fight. His issue was the weak nature of the contract which he would not perform at the present... Now this is why this contract is voidable... Again think for yourself and learn something, I am claiming this for a very specific reason which I will repeat again: This contract was essentially voidable because it could not hold together. Hearn could not in practice enforce it. Why? because it was never going to be worth it. Ruiz was never going to perform according to the original contract, why? because his value had grown considerably and it was not in his self interest to do so.

The problem you are having is you are looking up standard definitions for things that traditionally are thought out and often debated. Yes we know there are many regular types of contracts involving minors, or with a gun to someone's head that are very easy to define as "voidable." This situation is not cut and dry. One aspect of a good contract is when it is made at Arm's Length...vis a vis in a manner where both parties have their interests protected. A bad contract is predatory and often subject to legal incrimination.

Ruiz might have legally brought up duress when he signed this. He may have had a lawyer make the case that he had to take that fight. I don't know...But here is what I do know. Bad contracts are often impossible to enforce, hence are voidable. Hearn could not enforce this contract, it would have hurt AJ more than Ruiz in some ways.

[andocom]

/The Indian Contract Act, 1872// Free Consent:- voidable contract, unlike a void contract, is a valid contract which may be either affirmed or rejected at the option of one of the parties. At most, one party to the contract is bound. The unbound party may repudiate (reject) the contract, at which time the contract becomes void.

Typical grounds for a contract being voidable include coercion, undue influence, misrepresentation or fraud.

Mate just stop, you didn't know the difference between voiding a contract and breaching it, in your own explanation of a voidable contract you gave an example of a contract breach.

Now you bring up coercion & undue influence, Ruiz had more than sufficient representation, which again unless you are trying to imply Haymon coerced Ruiz or colluded with Hearn is completely irrelevant.

The rematch clause was one way, Joshua could trigger or not, he did, Ruiz was bound to that contract legally.

No one is arguing he wasn't trying to negotiate for some more money, no one is arguing he wasn't going to get it because at some point the juice isn't worth the squeeze, but your ideas on contract law are laughably wrong and painful to listen to.

[billeau2]

Mate just stop, you didn't know the difference between voiding a contract and breaching it, in your own explanation of a voidable contract you gave an example of a contract breach.

Now you bring up coercion & undue influence, Ruiz had more than sufficient representation, which again unless you are trying to imply Haymon coerced Ruiz or colluded with Hearn is completely irrelevant.

The rematch clause was one way, Joshua could trigger or not, he did, Ruiz was bound to that contract legally.

No one is arguing he wasn't trying to negotiate for some more money, no one is arguing he wasn't going to get it because at some point the juice isn't worth the squeeze, but your ideas on contract law are laughably wrong and painful to listen to.

Now? No...See thats the problem with idiots. Now huh? actually that was the whole point before you read one part, took it out of context and decided to call me out on it.

Let me ask you this: If there was such a clear distinction between the two, why are their legal battles? And here is a question? what if a contract was found to be prepared in some way haphhazardly? Like for example, the right person did not sign... What happens then? is the contract valid? See I have been in those situations and speak from experience, do you?

From when I started my posting about this I have been consistent it didn't start where your reading comprehension started. Its all on the posts.

I knew you would be back lol. So look, take the next post and then if you ever get a chance, read the actual posts you were supposedly responding too.

[juggernaut666]

Now? No...See thats the problem with idiots. Now huh? actually that was the whole point before you read one part, took it out of context and decided to call me out on it.

Let me ask you this: If there was such a clear distinction between the two, why are their legal battles? And here is a question? what if a contract was found to be prepared in some way haphhazardly? Like for example, the right person did not sign... What happens then? is the contract valid? See I have been in those situations and speak from experience, do you?

From when I started my posting about this I have been consistent it didn't start where your reading comprehension started. Its all on the posts.

I knew you would be back lol. So look, take the next post and then if you ever get a chance, read the actual posts you were supposedly responding too.

A right person doesn't need to sign a contractual obligation , anyones signature that's valid is only required and its binding.

I see what you're saying but the only leanway was more $$$$. Lets be real, Ruiz did not get that and lied to the public, otherwise he would fight this .He cant. Hes in no position its why Hearn made that court order public.

The original contract would never let Ruiz bolt from a Saudi Arabia event because we know this his own trainer said it, Ruiz led a bunch of fans to think otherwise.

Yes a contract is flexible but only money in that manner can be negotiated ,anything else ? Not really beside MAYBE glove size..etc...

[andocom]

Now? No...See thats the problem with idiots. Now huh? actually that was the whole point before you read one part, took it out of context and decided to call me out on it.

Let me ask you this: If there was such a clear distinction between the two, why are their legal battles? And here is a question? what if a contract was found to be prepared in some way haphhazardly? Like for example, the right person did not sign... What happens then? is the contract valid? See I have been in those situations and speak from experience, do you?

From when I started my posting about this I have been consistent it didn't start where your reading comprehension started. Its all on the posts.

I knew you would be back lol. So look, take the next post and then if you ever get a chance, read the actual posts you were supposedly responding too.

Jesus just take your L, you didn't know the difference between a voidable contract and breaching a contract.

I don't have personal experience with a voidable contract in my business, because I get legal advice and make sure contracts are sound and signed. In saying that I have studied contract and tort law at university, which I can just about guaranty you haven't, otherwise you would know the difference between a voidable contract and a contract breach.

Surely you understand it by now? Breaking a lease agreement isn't a voidable contract, that is breaching a contract, paying a couple months rent is a remedy for breach, if the contract was void why pay anything at all? An unsigned contract isn't a contract at all as its lacking acceptance, you can't breach a contract if it doesn't exist.

Your original point was Ruiz didn't have to honour the rematch clause as it no longer made sense for him to do, need I say more?

[billeau2]

A right person doesn't need to sign a contractual obligation , anyones signature that's valid is only required and its binding.

I see what you're saying but the only leanway was more $$$$. Lets be real, Ruiz did not get that and lied to the public, otherwise he would fight this .He cant. Hes in no position its why Hearn made that court order public.

The original contract would never let Ruiz bolt from a Saudi Arabia event because we know this his own trainer said it, Ruiz led a bunch of fans to think otherwise.

Yes a contract is flexible but only money in that manner can be negotiated ,anything else ? Not really beside MAYBE glove size..etc...

My only point remains simple... and its not picking a right or a wrong guy. The original clause as stated did not hold together.... we can say not much changed, thats really an opinion...and frankly i don't have an opinion about whether it was a major or minor change...

The change in value demanded a reworking. Given this state of affairs, it simply means that because it would be silly of hearn to fight it, and because ruiz threatened not to perform... the contract became weak and had to be tweaked....yes for more money i agee.

That is my only point... im not even capping on hearns here... weak, voidable contracts happen when there is a change in value and financial terms change.

So...lets say venue was not changed and only financial terms were tweaked lol i can live with that.