Friday, November 12, 2010
mitigating damages
Read this article regarding Washington Redskin's coach Mike Shanahan and his duty to mitigate damages when he was fired by the Denver Broncos mid-contract. Either explain why the author of the article's reference to Hadley v. Baxendale (p. 355 in your book) is misplaced, or explain in your own words why Mike Shanahan's decision to coach for the Redskins created a windfall to the Bronco's.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I think that using the example of the 1800's case, Hadley v. Baxendale, is absolutely misplaced because this case talks about the law that demonstrates the direct impact of defendant's breach of contract on plaintiff's loss of profit must be exist. In this case, the court held that there wasn't a direct relationship between defendant's delay in delivering the crackshift and plaintiff's loss of profit. Nevertheless, the article regarding Washington Redskin's coach Mike Shanahan and his duty to mitigate damages talks about mitigating damages which means, in this particular case, looking for another job instead of recovering damages from the defendant, the former employer who breached the employment contract before its last date.
ReplyDeleteThe Denver Bronco's will stay have to pay Shanahan since they fired him. Since they fired him and he will Coach for the redskins they will have to still pay him for the time he was fired because of the contract that they had for him. This will allow Shanahan to "double dipp" he will be getting paid from the redskins and the Denver Broncos because they have to finish paying for him in their agreement. So it will be a downfall for Denver because they are paying a coach who doesn't even work for them anymore.
ReplyDelete-Enrique bautista
Mike Shanahan definitely created a "Windfall" effect for the Denver Broncos. They will still have to pay him from the time he was fired until now, and have to finish paying for their agreements held within the contract. And this will effect the Bronco's because he is not Coaching or helping their program in any way, rather he is almost "stealing" money from the organization to complete contract agreements. And in regards to the 1800's case of Hadley Vs. Baxendale I feel that it is misplaced in an issue like this one. That case discusses the defendants fault for not supplying for the plaintiff, ending in a breach of contract. And the court found that there was no relevance in the time of delivering the necessary items for fixing, to the plaintiff's loss of profit. When this case deals with contracts and how an organization still has to match pay for a contract that is still effective when his salary is not being fulfilled by another organization.
ReplyDeleteThe author's reference to Hadley Vs. Baxendale is misplaced because Mike Shanahan should have tried to mitigate the damages, instead of recovering damages from the defendant, he should have been looking for another job. The fact that Shanahan is allowed to "double-dip" because his contract is not up with the Broncos makes it so that ,even if he isn't coaching the Broncos, he has to get paid by them. This makes it so that he is getting more money than he should by coaching one team.
ReplyDeleteUsing the example from the 19th century is a little out of date, but I do feel Mike Shanahan not working the year after his firing and according to his agent was looking for work is allowed to claim his salary from the Broncos. I feel the Broncos made their own problem by firing Mike Shanahan and not finishing his contract. Personally, I feel the Broncos should of finished Mike Shanahan's contract, if they were worried that they would have to pay him after their firing of them. It may not seem fair, but my personal understanding of the situation Mike Shanahan isn't breaching the contract and is clear of any wrong doing.
ReplyDeleteThis article's reference to Hadley vs Baxendale is misplaced. The reason for it is because the case involved a breach of contract in a way that was not at all parallel to the case of the coach being fired, and his breach of contract. The Hadley case involved the plaintiff suing for damages based on the fact that Baxendale received his payment for an over night delivery that was supposed to be overnight, the breach of contract had been the fact that it had taken several days. But this article is about the early termination of a coache's contract with a football team, where no real detrimental reliance was committed because he still was payed somewhat of the money that he was going to have made.
ReplyDeleteI remember when Lebron James announced he was leaving the Cleveland Cavalliers it was a mess still the Miami Heat went to a lot of trouble of getting him signed for 80 million dollars and 25 million dollars a year.The reason they said was because he has the ability to win games and he could bring the Heat to the finals.Now in the last few games the Heat has been proven wrong they have had losses that were not supposed to happen with him on the team, so is it necessary to say that the Heat should reconsider their decision and lower his salary. regarding this case the coach wasn't probably the best for this team but the team owner took a risk in hiring and signing him because in those contracts coaches are signed for usually several years so if you want to get rid of someone its best to do it after the contract expires because if you don't honor contracts then what's the point in having one. The Broncos promised shanaham to paid him for 5 years so if they decided to fire him in the first year and not give him chance to look for work then it would make sense for them to pay his losses since Shanaham signed under nfl rules which clearly states that when teams fire their coaches tehy must pay his losses if he can't get work or has lower pay. Now regarding the article reference of the case Hadley vs Baxendale I don't like the comparrison because in Hadley the factory owner didn't receive damages from losing profits but in this case its not the same Shanaham is still getting paid even though he's not working for the Broncos and he didn't breach the contract like Baxendale did by not holding up to his promise to deliver at the specific time they both agreed. Shanaham's firing was probably caused for his ability not to win games and last time I checked that was not a breach a contract.
ReplyDeleteMike Shanahan's decision to coach for the Redskins created a windfall to the Broncos because the Broncos decided to fire Shanahan they still have to pay him because of the contract that Shanahan had with the Broncos and it creates a windfall because Mike Shanahan is getting paid by the Broncos without even having to do anything with them. And besides everything he still is getting paid by the Washington Redskins. Mike Shanahan went from being fired to getting two salaries.
ReplyDeleteThe reference to the Hadley vs Baxendale case is completely misplaced, in the sense that the time period, situations, and laws have evolved. First of all,in Hadley vs Baxendale, the factory owner didn not receive damages from losing profits, he ended up at an overall ultimate loss. In our recent development,Shanaham is still recieving payment from the Denver Broncos. Shanaham did not essentially "breach" the contract, but his inability to perform at his optimum and yield wins for the team just made him another pawn in the sporting world.
ReplyDeleteA company should be responsible for all contracts they choose to take place in. The windfall for Shanahan does not exist because when he accepted the contract he expected a certain amount of money and a certain amount years working for the broncos. The broncos breached that contract so he should get what he was promised. His choice of finding a new contract shouldn't effect the previous one that was breached by his employer.
ReplyDeleteShanahan created a windfall for the Denver Broncos because since he was fired from the Broncos they will still have to finish paying him because of the contract that they had which was worth nearly $40 million. Mike Shanahan is not coaching the Denver Broncos but coaching the Redskins still he gets paid by both of them. The Broncos are not gaining anything from him but instead they are losing money since Mike Shanahan has nothing to do with the Denver Broncos anymore. Mike Shanahan did not breach the contract therefore he is still getting paid by them.
ReplyDeleteI think the case Hadley v. Baxendale. is similar to the Denver Broncos case in couple ways. One way is that both of them cut into their contract but were fired or let go unfairly. They both did not make that big of a mistake to be let go in mid contract. Both mistakes were and could be fixed. Secondly, I think the people that were let go actually ended up getting the better end of the deal in the long run, causing the companies and the team more finanical burden then them being with the company or team.
ReplyDelete-Selina Mirzakhani
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteMike Shanahan created a windfall for the Broncos because he gave the team an opportunity to get a new coach for the Broncos. Shanahan was not winning any games for the team and being one of the highest paid coaches did not make sense. This happens a lot in sports they see a good potential player and the team pays them a lot then realizes either they do not fit the team or since the contract offer was so good they start to slack. Only way to deal with this is to fire them and find a substitute. As for the book, the Hadleys receiving money for the days the mill was closed due to Baxendale not sending the crankshaft off as first priority depends on the case. I would think if the Hadleys and Baxendale had an agreement to send off the crankshaft on the same day or next then Baxendale would be at fault.
ReplyDeleteThe Hadley vs. Baxendale case is misplaced because in that case the plaintiff had sued the defendant claiming that the loss of profits was caused by the defendants breach of contract. The court sided with the defendant and the plaintiff left with nothing. I dont see how this is related to Mike Shanahan. He had a contract with the Broncos. He was fired and got a new coaching job with the Redskins. Since he was fired before his contract was up, Denver has to continue to pay the remaining amount of money. From what I understand, neither side is experiencing damages that needs to be compensated. Mike hasn't experienced any damages since being fired but yet he is receiving a pretty big salary from the Broncos while working with the Redskins.
ReplyDeleteMike Shanahan decision to coach for the Redskins most definetly created a windfall to the Denver Broncos and a scandal to the NFL. Mike Shanahan was fired from the Broncos and still had legal rights from the contract to get paid, even when he wasn't even coaching them. Now coaching for the Redskins, Shanahan is basically earning two salaries and both teams are technically obligated to pay him. On the other hand, the article's reference to Hadley vs. Baxendale is misplaced because the case is about the defendant being sued for loss of profits due to breach of contract.
ReplyDeleteThe article's reference to Hadley v. Baxendale is completely misplaced. Hadley v. Baxendale case cannot be used as a precedent for the NFL case in any way. They both fall under contract laws, but they are totally different contract in nature. The Hadley v. Baxendale contract is a contract between two business, in which one company suffered damages because the other did not do what they promised under the contract. The NFL case is an employee contract, which has different protection under the law.
ReplyDeleteafter 20 min of trying to comprehend this article, i can deduce that the Hadley v. Baxendale case is misplaced because it is very much different from the situation with Shahananahm. What 'damages' did the coach really have? He got fired and was hired by the Redskins for pretty much the same salary as when he was with the Broncos within a short period of time(and on top of that received damages from them as well). In the famous 1800's case, the plaintiff had actually had a real economic loss.
ReplyDeleteHowever after further analysis of this article, i believe the author rightfully placed the Hadley v. Baxendale case in order to give a brief background and history of mitigation
-Josh Neale
I believe the the reference between the 2 cases is out of context. One is for loss of work due to the machine being broken. Which the delivery people of the grank didn't know there would we such a loss if the factory wasn't using that piece of equipment. They can't sue for what they didn't know. And the coach's contract now has him being paid by two teams. I don't consider the coach's job to be referenced to a machine, he's a coach. (who's overpaid anyway)
ReplyDeleteIn my opinon the company is responsible for all contracts that they choose to take place, because the windfall for Shanahan does not exist.When he accepted the contract he expected a certain amount of money and a certain amount years working for the broncos. So basically one company suffered damages because the other did not do what they promised under the contract. Thats why I think that auothor's reference to Hadley v. Baxendale is completely misplaced.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinon the company is responsible for all contracts that they choose to take place, because the windfall for Shanahan does not exist.When he accepted the contract he expected a certain amount of money and a certain amount years working for the broncos. So basically one company suffered damages because the other did not do what they promised under the contract. Thats why I think that auothor's reference to Hadley v. Baxendale is completely misplaced.
ReplyDeleteSVETLANA HOVHANNISYAN