For the Lawyers out There

by Hollywood15 on Feb 28, 2008 4:21 AM EST Comment 8 comments

I'm not intimately knowledgeable about the MLB antitrust and collective bargaining agreements, but wouldn't paying Spiezio be unjust enrichment.

Pleading in the alternative (and I don't have access to his contract) wouldn't he breach his contract by violating an implied covenant to be fit to preform his duties. With the congressional anti-trust exemption there must be a myriad of laws to examine, but I welcome any informed comment.

0 recs | Comment 8 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

My guess

I would think that they probably just determined that it wasn't worth it to litigate the issue. They probably would have had several arguable defenses to breaking the contract, but would most likely have been sued over it. They would have incurred significant legal fees and costs and still may have lost the issue.
They might have also taken PR into account, adding value to a quick resolution.

by fltfire on Feb 28, 2008 6:04 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

not convicted...yet

he has been charged, but he hasnt been convicted of anything yet. i dont think there is anything the cards could do to recoup money unless/until he is convicted. even then, he would likely have to miss parts or all of the season while in prison. players get misdemeanor convictions all of the time. they serve a suspension, and then get back to playing. i think cutting spiezio was more about sending a message than it was about him not being able to perform.

by dmb60614 on Feb 28, 2008 10:12 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Probably not

Virtually all MLB contracts require the club to pay on the contract even if they release the player, regardless of the reason. He hasn't violated any obligation to perform his duties --he showed up at camp and was wiling to play. Unjust enrichment wouldn't apply here -- that is a tort that is used (usually with little success) when there is no clear contractual obligation. From the article in the P-D this morning, it appears that the Cards acknowledge their obligation to pay Spiezio.

On the other hand, the standard contract has a "good citizenship" clause that is pretty vague, and the Rockies relied on that to void Denny Neagle's contract following his similar (but worse) behavior a few years ago. The union grieved it, and the parties wound up settling before an arbitration hearing (and my information is that the Rockies essentially caved and gave Neagle most of the money). Teams have been reluctant to rely on the "good citizenship" clause since then -- for example, Dmitri Young wound up getting paid for his contract after the Tigers cut him

by tdawg on Feb 28, 2008 10:26 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Agreed

Unjust enrichment most likely would not apply here. Cardinals and Spiezio have a contract, if they pay him under the contract they can't claim that Spiezio has been unjustly enriched.

If the Cards have a cause of action against Spiezio it is in contract, for a breach of that contract. It would be difficult to argue that Spiezio has breached except for perhaps a morals clause. Really the Cards have anticipatorily breached the contract but are not liable to Spiezio for damages because they are making him whole.

Without having actually read the contract, I think this is the most likely legal analysis of the situation.

by OCCardsFan on Feb 28, 2008 11:40 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

unjust enrichment

is a quasi-contract theory in equity. Where a contract actually exists, as in the case with Spezio, the remedies are in law and not equity.

by lawman3842 on Feb 28, 2008 2:05 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

I think it would be

Hard to argue the breach based on the Moral clause given the manager has a DUI of his own so Spiezio's behavior is within the comunities moral standard based on company president. Any other angle would be imposible since you would have to educate a judge and possibly a jury on MLB contracts as they relate to other contracts, how recourse is applicable to this contract and so on. The judge and/or jury would have their heads spinning and just end up saying "Well that's not fair. Pay him anyway."

by Harknights on Feb 28, 2008 6:40 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

not a lawyer by any means; but...

in my opinion, if it were a $10-20 million dollar deal they may have tried to litigate, but with it being "only" $2.3 mil, they prolly just felt it was simpler to pay it, and be done with it

i also think the fact that he left out the alcohol, and maybe the assault on the neighbor when he told the team about the incident sealed his fate

Pujols is the greatest Cardinal in my lifetime.

by bigcardsfan5 on Feb 28, 2008 10:37 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Grievance arbitration

The Cards chose to release him in a manner that lets him get his pay. There is no "unjust enrichment" if he is paid in accordance with a contract, and there is no antitrust issue because of baseball's special antitrust status and the antitrust exemption for collective bargaining.

Why the Cards didn't release him under a provision that would deny him pay is open to speculation.

My guess is that they feel sympathy for him, and gratitude for his role in 2006. Labor arbitrators are notoriously likely to protect an employee in a situation like this, so the Cards may have felt that paying the money was better than getting bad publicity and the risk of an unfavorable decision.

by madridbend on Mar 2, 2008 4:57 PM EST reply actions 0 recs