Wow. We have some really smart & funny people controlling our team...

 

Feb 22, 2012 - David Samson is the president of the Miami Marlins. In 2008, David Samson was the president of the Florida Marlins. In February of that year, Samson served as the auctioneer at the Fourth Annual Awards Banquet at the Diplomat Country Club & Spa. It was a team function, see, and an auction was a big part of it. To begin the auction, Samson put the Marlins up for sale, available to bidders at a starting price of $10 million. Samson was probably joking. Somebody bid. That somebody was apparently not joking.

 

And now that somebody is suing the Marlins. Omeranz & Landsma Corporation submitted the bid. It was the only bid. A contract of some sort was subsequently drawn up. The Marlins then failed to honor the contract by not actually being sold for $10 million. So the corporation is suing for "damages". And also for "such other and further relief" as the court deems "just and proper". This is legal terminology for "we want money and goodies". I have a friend in law school so I can parse this stuff like nobody's business.

 

Obviously, Samson was not seriously offering the Marlins for a $10 million starting price. David Samson has his flaws, but "complete and utter incompetence" is not one of them. However, without having seen the alleged contract entered into after the Omeranz & Landsma bid, it's fun to let the imagination run wild and think that the Marlins might have gotten themselves into a pickle here. Since I don't actually know anything about law, I don't know how courts differentiate legitimate contracts from facetious contracts. Maybe they do, and maybe they don't. Maybe the Marlins inserted specific language, and maybe they didn't.

 

Omeranz & Landsma are not suing for ownership. They don't want to take over. You know what's really hard? Running an entire baseball franchise! But they're suing for something, and as weird as this looks from the outside, they could very well walk away with fuller pockets, either by ruling or by settlement. David Samson might have been joking, but something I've learned about rich white people is that they don't tell very good jokes, and now Samson might have to pay for one of his.

 

 

http://mlb.sbnation....ns-sued-auction

yeah, good luck with that. nothing was signed. they have nothing.

and now Samson might have to pay for one of his.

 

 

http://mlb.sbnation....ns-sued-auction

 

Yeah, not likely. :tv_happy

yeah, good luck with that. nothing was signed. they have nothing.

 

You don't understand the lawsuit.

 

The auction was conducted as an "absolute auction" & Samson who commenced the auction accepted the offer of $10MM in good faith. As a result a "binding contract" was created. The Marlins however have failed and refuse to comply with the terms of the contract by not completing the sale with an actual written contract. Accordingly, the Marlins have breached the binding contract they created. Due to this breach the corporation claims that they have suffered damages & are demanding whatever payment the court views as "just and proper."

yeah, good luck with that. nothing was signed. they have nothing.

 

You don't understand the lawsuit.

 

The auction was conducted as an "absolute auction" & Samson who commenced the auction accepted the offer of $10MM in good faith. As a result a "binding contract" was created. The Marlins however have failed and refuse to comply with the terms of the contract by not completing the sale with an actual written contract. Accordingly, the Marlins have breached the binding contract they created. Due to this breach the corporation claims that they have suffered damages & are demanding whatever payment the court views as "just and proper."

Where are you getting this information from about an "absolute auction"? And how can you know he accepted the offer in good faith? That's a finding of fact made by the court.

 

Whether or not there's a contract is a factual question. Contract law is not about somehow tricking somebody into a contract and then suing for breach because you outwitted them.

 

Contractual obligations are determined by the words of the contract, the surrounding circumstances, and the reasonable expectations of the parties. It's obvious that David Samson doesn't himself have the authority to sell the team, especially since he's not the owner, setting aside any necessary approval of a board or similar entity. It was likely completely unreasonable of them to think there was a contract here.

 

Just like the guy who tried to claim the jumbo jet advertised on the Pepsi Commercial in exchange for points, these people are likely to be laughed out of court.

the Sonics would still be in Seattle if "in good faith" really meant anything. no way this holds up in court.

yeah, good luck with that. nothing was signed. they have nothing.

 

You don't understand the lawsuit.

 

The auction was conducted as an "absolute auction" & Samson who commenced the auction accepted the offer of $10MM in good faith. As a result a "binding contract" was created. The Marlins however have failed and refuse to comply with the terms of the contract by not completing the sale with an actual written contract. Accordingly, the Marlins have breached the binding contract they created. Due to this breach the corporation claims that they have suffered damages & are demanding whatever payment the court views as "just and proper."

Where are you getting this information from about an "absolute auction"? And how can you know he accepted the offer in good faith? That's a finding of fact made by the court.

 

Whether or not there's a contract is a factual question. Contract law is not about somehow tricking somebody into a contract and then suing for breach because you outwitted them.

 

Contractual obligations are determined by the words of the contract, the surrounding circumstances, and the reasonable expectations of the parties. It's obvious that David Samson doesn't himself have the authority to sell the team, especially since he's not the owner, setting aside any necessary approval of a board or similar entity. It was likely completely unreasonable of them to think there was a contract here.

 

Just like the guy who tried to claim the jumbo jet advertised on the Pepsi Commercial in exchange for points, these people are likely to be laughed out of court.

I got the information about it being an "absolute auction" from here: http://www.courthous.../21/Marlins.pdf

 

I'm planning on starting law school this upcoming year so I might be talking out of my @$$ but from what I understand a contract in some cases could be considered "binding" even if not in actual written form.

 

I'm not familiar with this source but read this:

 

A binding contract is a written agreement between two individuals or entities that will be enforced by the power of the law. The contract is thus considered binding because if one party fails to live up to his obligations as set forth in the document, the court will impose penalties. Some refer to a contract as the creation of a private legal duty, because two parties create a legally enforceable exchange of promises.

 

In order for a contract to be binding, it must be made in accordance with the contract law of the relevant jurisdiction. The exact rules for what is required to create a binding contractdiffer from state to state, country to country, and situation to situation. For example, in the United States, certain types of contracts must be in writing, such as contracts for the sale of goods of more than $500 US Dollars (USD, while other contracts do not need to be in written form to be enforced).

 

The contract is considered binding because there are penalties for not fulfilling the obligations set forth within the document. If one party fails to do what he promised in a legally valid, enforceable binding contract, the other party can take him to court and sue him for breach. If the party suing establishes that the contract was valid and that failure did in fact occur, the court will find for the plaintiff and award damages.

 

 

http://www.wisegeek....ng-contract.htm

 

 

As far as I know, however, in order for a contract to be "binding" without being in written form it has to be that the seller was not obviously joking-which in this case, I think it was obvious that Samson was just playing around.

 

Here's where you could read that law:

 

Meeting of the minds sometimes can be expressed by words spoken or gestures made or can be inferred from the surrounding circumstances. There is no meeting of the minds if: (1) one side is obviously joking or bragging,

(2) there is no actual agreement (i.e., the farmer who is selling a gelding and the buyer thinks the horse is a brood mare), or (3) both sides have made a material mistake as to the terms or details of the contract.

 

http://law.freeadvic...ng_contract.htm

I met Jeffrey Loria once and told him if I could block David Samson in a game of basketball he'd have to give me the Marlins.

 

Well long story short... Samson is a better basketball player than his height might tell...

I once bet my brother a million bucks he couldn't back flip into the pool. Can't wait to take his ass to court!

If I understand this correctly, the law in the state of Florida is that a contract could be considered "binding" without being in actual written form (provided that there was a mutual agreement along with a clear definition as to the terms of the deal).

 

Florida contract law for beginners can help you gain a better understanding of the do’s and don’ts of engaging in written and oral agreements. Florida contract law sets guidelines on the legality of verbal and written agreements as well as the repercussions and penalties for individuals who choose not to comply with the terms of the agreement.

 

Under contract law in Florida as in other states, a legal contract is an agreement made between two or more parties. A contract typically has several components: a mutual agreement, consideration, legal purpose and a clear definition of the terms of the agreement.

 

http://www.business....eginners-37400/

So did they actually pay the $10 million? Even though the bidders are obviously idiots, they deserve to get their $10 million back if nothing was given in return. Not so sure about any "damages", though.

So did they actually pay the $10 million? Even though the bidders are obviously idiots, they deserve to get their $10 million back if nothing was given in return. Not so sure about any "damages", though.

 

Didn't read this anywhere but from what I understand the bidders did not pay the $10 million (for had they paid the $10 million I presume they would have demanded ownership of the team right away instead of waiting 4 years). It seems to me like they simply brought it up now as a way of making some money for a bad joke played by Samson. As said earlier, they're not even interested in gaining ownership over the team-they simply want to be paid for the "damages" that were caused to them by the Marlins breach of the contract.

yeah, good luck with that. nothing was signed. they have nothing.

 

You don't understand the lawsuit.

 

The auction was conducted as an "absolute auction" & Samson who commenced the auction accepted the offer of $10MM in good faith. As a result a "binding contract" was created. The Marlins however have failed and refuse to comply with the terms of the contract by not completing the sale with an actual written contract. Accordingly, the Marlins have breached the binding contract they created. Due to this breach the corporation claims that they have suffered damages & are demanding whatever payment the court views as "just and proper."

Where are you getting this information from about an "absolute auction"? And how can you know he accepted the offer in good faith? That's a finding of fact made by the court.

 

Whether or not there's a contract is a factual question. Contract law is not about somehow tricking somebody into a contract and then suing for breach because you outwitted them.

 

Contractual obligations are determined by the words of the contract, the surrounding circumstances, and the reasonable expectations of the parties. It's obvious that David Samson doesn't himself have the authority to sell the team, especially since he's not the owner, setting aside any necessary approval of a board or similar entity. It was likely completely unreasonable of them to think there was a contract here.

 

Just like the guy who tried to claim the jumbo jet advertised on the Pepsi Commercial in exchange for points, these people are likely to be laughed out of court.

I got the information about it being an "absolute auction" from here: http://www.courthous.../21/Marlins.pdf

 

I'm planning on starting law school this upcoming year so I might be talking out of my @$$ but from what I understand a contract in some cases could be considered "binding" even if not in actual written form.

 

As far as I know, however, in order for a contract to be "binding" without being in written form it has to be that the seller was not obviously joking-which in this case, I think it was obvious that Samson was just playing around.

 

Here's where you could read that law:

 

Meeting of the minds sometimes can be expressed by words spoken or gestures made or can be inferred from the surrounding circumstances. There is no meeting of the minds if: (1) one side is obviously joking or bragging,

(2) there is no actual agreement (i.e., the farmer who is selling a gelding and the buyer thinks the horse is a brood mare), or (3) both sides have made a material mistake as to the terms or details of the contract.

 

http://law.freeadvic...ng_contract.htm

 

Contracts can absolutely be unwritten, although there are exceptions to that (see, e.g. Statute of Frauds).

 

What you quoted is the key: there was no meeting of the minds and Samson was clearly joking, which everyone knew.

 

They didn't even spell "Marlins" correctly in the complaint :lol (the "Florida Marlin"/"Miami Marlin" baseball team)

So did they actually pay the $10 million? Even though the bidders are obviously idiots, they deserve to get their $10 million back if nothing was given in return. Not so sure about any "damages", though.

 

Didn't read this anywhere but from what I understand the bidders did not pay the $10 million (for had they paid the $10 million I presume they would have demanded ownership of the team right away instead of waiting 4 years). It seems to me like they simply brought it up now as a way of making some money for a bad joke played by Samson. As said earlier, they're not even interested in gaining ownership over the team-they simply want to be paid for the "damages" that were caused to them by the Marlins breach of the contract.

Since they didn't pay the $10 Million, unless they offered payment after a reasonable time and the Marlins refused -- and I didn't see that anywhere in the complaint -- then they never even fulfilled their side of the alleged contract.

 

The more I think about it, the closer this case looks to a FRCP Rule 11 violation, even though I doubt a court would ever penalize a lawyer here.

Contracts can absolutely be unwritten, although there are exceptions to that (see, e.g. Statute of Frauds).

 

What you quoted is the key: there was no meeting of the minds and Samson was clearly joking, which everyone knew.

 

They didn't even spell "Marlins" correctly in the complain "lol (the "Florida Marlin"/"Miami Marlin" baseball team)

 

It could definitely be argued that there was a "meeting of the minds" in that there was a mutual agreement along with a clear definition as to the terms of the deal-but as I quoted above, one caveat of the law is that in order for there to be a "binding" contract it can't be that one side of the deal was clearly joking.

 

So what I think the Marlins are gonna do is say that the contract was never actually binding as the team was worth a lot more than just $10 million and therefore it was obvious that they were just joking around (hilarious).

Gee, they stayed dormant about this for four years while they were the Florida Marlins and now that they are the Miami Marlins and getting money and attention, someone wants a piece of the money and attention. Surprise surprise.

poster "Marlins" works for the Omeranz & Landsma Corporation

poster "Marlins" works for the Omeranz & Landsma Corporation

 

Haha. I think that would actually be a compliment (especially considering how many people don't even have a job).

 

I was just explaining the "other side of the coin." It's obvious where the Marlins are coming from-it was just a JOKE. But even so, the corporation has a decent argument & may end up winning (they wouldn't get ownership over the team-they would just get some $ for the "damages" that the breach caused).

Contracts can absolutely be unwritten, although there are exceptions to that (see, e.g. Statute of Frauds).

 

What you quoted is the key: there was no meeting of the minds and Samson was clearly joking, which everyone knew.

 

They didn't even spell "Marlins" correctly in the complain "lol (the "Florida Marlin"/"Miami Marlin" baseball team)

 

It could definitely be argued that there was a "meeting of the minds" in that there was a mutual agreement along with a clear definition as to the terms of the deal-but as I quoted above, one caveat of the law is that in order for there to be a "binding" contract it can't be that one side of the deal was clearly joking.

 

So what I think the Marlins are gonna do is say that the contract was never actually binding as the team was worth a lot more than just $10 million and therefore it was obvious that they were just joking around (hilarious).

I'm not trying to be rude, but you're simply not right. That's not a meeting of the minds, and it's not even clear there was any sort of mutual agreement with clear terms.

 

I'm not just guessing here. I've taken contracts at school already. I know more than the basics, and this case is really little more than the basics.

 

The Marlins have about 500 legal arguments that should all result in this case being quickly tossed out in a summary judgment.

They didn't even attempt to fulfill their "side" of the "contract.". They have absolutely no argument.

 

Ban bet that this gets tossed out on summary judgment.

Ban bet that this gets tossed out on summary judgment.

 

NO! WE CAN'T RISK LOSING YOU!

Contracts can absolutely be unwritten, although there are exceptions to that (see, e.g. Statute of Frauds).

 

What you quoted is the key: there was no meeting of the minds and Samson was clearly joking, which everyone knew.

 

They didn't even spell "Marlins" correctly in the complain "lol (the "Florida Marlin"/"Miami Marlin" baseball team)

 

It could definitely be argued that there was a "meeting of the minds" in that there was a mutual agreement along with a clear definition as to the terms of the deal-but as I quoted above, one caveat of the law is that in order for there to be a "binding" contract it can't be that one side of the deal was clearly joking.

 

So what I think the Marlins are gonna do is say that the contract was never actually binding as the team was worth a lot more than just $10 million and therefore it was obvious that they were just joking around (hilarious).

I'm not trying to be rude, but you're simply not right. That's not a meeting of the minds, and it's not even clear there was any sort of mutual agreement with clear terms.

 

I'm not just guessing here. I've taken contracts at school already. I know more than the basics, and this case is really little more than the basics.

 

The Marlins have about 500 legal arguments that should all result in this case being quickly tossed out in a summary judgment.

I demand this list be produced.

My sources tell me to go **** yourself.

 

:lol

Except for case #499, Squall.

Except for case #499, Squall.

 

I'm only "worried" about #69.

Nah, that's been tossed out already. 499, worry bout that one.

Contracts can absolutely be unwritten, although there are exceptions to that (see, e.g. Statute of Frauds).

 

What you quoted is the key: there was no meeting of the minds and Samson was clearly joking, which everyone knew.

 

They didn't even spell "Marlins" correctly in the complain "lol (the "Florida Marlin"/"Miami Marlin" baseball team)

 

It could definitely be argued that there was a "meeting of the minds" in that there was a mutual agreement along with a clear definition as to the terms of the deal-but as I quoted above, one caveat of the law is that in order for there to be a "binding" contract it can't be that one side of the deal was clearly joking.

 

So what I think the Marlins are gonna do is say that the contract was never actually binding as the team was worth a lot more than just $10 million and therefore it was obvious that they were just joking around (hilarious).

I'm not trying to be rude, but you're simply not right. That's not a meeting of the minds, and it's not even clear there was any sort of mutual agreement with clear terms.

 

I'm not just guessing here. I've taken contracts at school already. I know more than the basics, and this case is really little more than the basics.

 

The Marlins have about 500 legal arguments that should all result in this case being quickly tossed out in a summary judgment.

As I said before, I haven't started law school yet so I may be talking out of my @$$. I was just giving my 2 cents.

 

From what I understand it could be argued that there was an understanding that whoever gave the highest bid would receive ownership of the team. The Marlins started the bidding at $10 million and the corporation placed the first (& only) bid for $10 million. What terms are unclear exactly? Sounds pretty clear to me...

 

But again, the Marlins could just explain that they were joking & easily win the case...Not sure exactly how the corporation would be able to fight back against a clear explanation of how it should have been obvious that they were just messing around. Perhaps they could claim that the Marlins were expecting to get a lot more bids & sell it at a much higher price-but since the highest bid was $10 million they refused to agree to the terms despite there being a "binding contract." Not sure if that makes sense...Again, I might be talking out of my @$$...I don't actually know anything.