New Poll: Legality of IFOCE contract

October 3, 2007 at 2:49 pm by ojrifkin · More posts about:Business, Contracts, Organizations

The new poll asks what you think the result would be if the IFOCE contract was challenged in court.

Comments (15)

15 Comments »

  1. Ghost of Johnnie Cochran said

    October 3, 2007 @ 3:24 pm

    even i couldnt come close to legally defending this rag……………………

  2. Gentleman Joe said

    October 3, 2007 @ 4:46 pm

    I don’t know what it looks like anymore.

    The ones that were put in front of me would be laughed at.

    Most of us are honorable enough to follow through w/what we’ve signed, legal or not. Like a hand shake.

    Its a shame the same can’t be said of those that run the organization.

  3. Mega Munch said

    October 3, 2007 @ 8:41 pm

    I’m sure a lot of people would like to think it wouldn’t stand up in court, but the Shea’s are smart guys with their own Manhattan PR agency. I’m sure they ran the contract by their lawyers before finalizing it.

  4. brad sciullo said

    October 4, 2007 @ 1:20 am

    Im proud of my contract.I was psyced the day i faxed it and keep a copy around for inspiration.its a sport.

  5. Lets be real said

    October 4, 2007 @ 2:37 am

    You people must be as dumb as you look. What real attorney would look this contract over. Mega you give the sheas alot more credit than they deserve. If a real lawyer wanted to challenge them, he or she would have a field day. Noone has yet to challenge that contract in court. It has about as much validity to it as shit on rye. You hit it correctly when you said PR. They make a living acting as professional con men and very good ones i might add. I wonder if either of them ever pitched as used car salesmen. I am sure they hired an attorney to oversee their corporate real estate business if they were ever actually involved in it to begin with. I would have to laugh if a competitive eating attorney does exist.

  6. Carey said

    October 4, 2007 @ 9:33 am

    Once we find out what the results are of the Poker Players V. WPTE, we will have a better idea of what actions can be taken with the IFOCE. There has been a motion filed in March requesting the current contracts be banned because of anti-trust laws. The acts that violate these laws are described here
    http://wptlawsuit.com/files/29194-27742/poker_press.pdf
    It sounds like they are dealing with the same exact issues.

  7. Rhonda Evans said

    October 4, 2007 @ 10:21 am

    I agree with you Mega. I have a lawyer friend who downloaded one of those contracts from the Internet and checked it over. It is indeed a viable contract.

  8. Tom G said (Registered May 27, 2007)

    October 4, 2007 @ 12:41 pm

    Remember, though, it is not only a matter of what is written in the contract, but also the McCarthyist way they only allow certain people to even sign the contract

  9. Carey said

    October 4, 2007 @ 2:53 pm

    Rhonda, ask your lawyer friend if he knows what consideration means, and what the consideration is in that contract. The signing away of your intellectual property, and losing the right to compete in outside events, just for the chance to compete in a contest where there is no pay except the prizes to the winners is basically zero consideration. Not to mention the fact that the contract violates the Sherman Act, and executes price fixing.

  10. Rhonda Evans said

    October 4, 2007 @ 3:15 pm

    I already did Carey. He does. Do you?

  11. Rhonda Evans said

    October 4, 2007 @ 3:26 pm

    You guys in the AICE really love to embrace contractual issues as a reason for not competing in MLE.

    Like I said earlier, if you don’t like what’s on TV (MLE) change the damn channel. You have, (by joining the AICE). Yet, you’re still bitching about what was on the other channel that you changed from. That doesn’t make a damned bit of sense.

    Sounds like you guys are bitching out of jealousy (of having what the IFOCE eaters have) to me and nothing else.

    If you want better money and more exposure, take it up with your own management. Otherwise, this contract crap is not just old, it’s like old gossipy women shootin’ the shit, because they’ve nothing better to do!

    Life’s too short folks.

    As much as I would like to see thcompeting there.

  12. Anonymous said

    October 4, 2007 @ 4:29 pm

    I’m so glad we have Carey Poehlman, Labor Lawyer Extraordinaire, here at our services to explain to us the complicated nuances of the law.

    Carey, what’s your background again?

  13. i said

    October 4, 2007 @ 5:02 pm

    he read the pdf about the poker lawsuit…………………..

  14. Jillybean said

    October 4, 2007 @ 6:17 pm

    Haven’t we beaten this issue to death already?

  15. Carey said

    October 5, 2007 @ 9:50 am

    Rhonda, you only answered half the question. Your response was a good as ‘I know you are but what am I’
    Hey, OJ posted the question. If you don’t like the discussion, change the post.

    right, I get it. Can’t talk about law unless you’re a lawyer. If that is the case, many of you here shouldn’t be posting until you get a better grasp of the English language. My background in this area is business law at Penn State

    i said, it is a good read. But don’t stop there, check out the articles online about anti-trust.

    Anonymous, it is actually contractual law. Labor law is a different area, but I could hold my own there also.

RSS feed for comments on this post

Leave a Comment

Log in | Register | Comments by users who have not logged in will be held for approval