Kaigorodov's case, or why Russian Hockey federation would never sign IIHF deal.

[Timmy]

Excatly... the poster was saying Kaigs dominated a crappy league... I was making the point that it was very competitive last year.

Point taken.

 

[fr4ed2384]

A legally binding contract would be honored in either US or Canadian courts by International Treaty -- unless you can prove: a. coersion b. fraud c. lack of effective counsel ( underage) or d. that one party did not receive value or did not intend to give "value " -breach of contract-( ie. did not pay or ordered hockey pucks -got ice cubes ).
This is simple contract law -- and suit if necessary - will occur in the juris where the contract specifies. If not specified most courts will tend to send it where the contract was signed or performance was performed. Simple if the player jumped to US or Canade and if a vaid contract was signd in Russia then a judgement for the plantiff (team) would be rendered in Russian courts (if appropriate) and Damages ?? and then the judgement would be delivered to the required Canadian or US court with jurisdiction asking injunctive relief ( prevent the player from playing) and damages or show cause. . The defendant (s) would have a right to ask for a ruling on a specified grounds and to appeal .

What will happen going forward is: teams when drafting Russian players will lower the prospect in the draft ( pick instead of 1st round maybe 3rd round) and complete a more through due diligence before drafting..

 

[GSC2k2*]

Why?

The NHL team signs a personal services (NHL player) contract. The subject matter of the contract and the parties are within the jursidiction of the Ontario courts

The Russian team files suit seeking an injunction claiming breach of contract on the basis of the foreign contract previously signed. The Russian party is not seeking to enforce its contract but rater prevent a breach in a foreign jurisdiction. The court would have the power to grant an injunction against the payer performing services for the NHL club.

There is no problem in the Ontario court accepting jurisdiction. Cases involving foreign contracts occur all the time. I have done anumber of them over the years.

This is just basic conflict of laws (private international law) principles. Have you actually studied Conflict of Laws (or privaye international law as it is sometimes called)? Or are you simply pulling out domestic legal issues?

Here is a primer on the area.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_international_law

Wetcoaster, having done international transactions the world over for eleven years, I think I probably have you (and about 95% or more of other lawyers - even assuming you ARE a lawyer) thoroughly beat if you want to compare expertise. I have actually worked on Russian projects, not to mention projects in the US, Mexico, Brazil, Jamaica, Chile, China, Germany, Taiwan, England, Ireland, Malaysia and even freaking Mongolia, and have done worked with customers/JV partners/consortium partners/contractors in over a dozen other countries.

I have no need to read a Wikipedia internet summary for international law and conflict of laws, since I have actually practiced extensively in the area and studied it as well. Have you? Can you reference a file on which you have worked? It would appear not. Thanks so much for the reference though.

"Cases involving foreign contracts occur all the time. I have done anumber of them over the years." Well, ZERO is a number, I suppose. They do rarely come along, but I doubt you are being truthful regarding your involvement. Just my opinion, based on your posts.

The NHL team signs a personal services (NHL player) contract. The subject matter of the contract and the parties are within the jursidiction of the Ontario courts

In your example, the parties are not seeking to do anything regarding the Canadian contract. The Russians would be seeking to enforce (or prevent a breach of) the Russian contract. The Canadian contract would be valid in and of itself. It is not the subject matter of the litigation, though. The breach would be with respect to the Russian contract. That is the subject matter. The Russian courts are clearly the most appropriate forum in which to determine whether there is a breach. The club is Russian. The contract was entered into in Russia. THe contract was to play in Russia. As well, Russian law is applied.

While you are correct that it is POSSIBLE for a Canadian court to apply Russian laws, there are many restrictions on doing so (public policy, etc.). In addition, there are tons of ways to place obstacles in front of a Russian club (including the posting of security for costs).

I would be surprised if any Russian's player contract did not have a choice of laws and forum provision. Of course, if that is the case, the Russian club's hands would be tied in any event.

Furthermore, you are ven assumng that an injunction would be available. While this is an employment contract, and the player would have certain skills, there is no hockey player whose skills are so unique that the breach would not be compensable in damages (which inability, of course, is a precondition for obtaining an injunction). Given that the Canadian club would lead evidence indicating that there has been a long tradition of negotiating transfer fees for players over the years allowing them to walk away from Russian contracts and play in the NHL, I suggest to you that it is impossible for them to argue that a breach of any player's contract for services would not be compensable in damages. It will be dismissed in very short order.

 

[GSC2k2*]

A legally binding contract would be honored in either US or Canadian courts by International Treaty -- unless you can prove: a. coersion b. fraud c. lack of effective counsel ( underage) or d. that one party did not receive value or did not intend to give "value " -breach of contract-( ie. did not pay or ordered hockey pucks -got ice cubes ).
This is simple contract law -- and suit if necessary - will occur in the juris where the contract specifies. If not specified most courts will tend to send it where the contract was signed or performance was performed. Simple if the player jumped to US or Canade and if a vaid contract was signd in Russia then a judgement for the plantiff (team) would be rendered in Russian courts (if appropriate) and Damages ?? and then the judgement would be delivered to the required Canadian or US court with jurisdiction asking injunctive relief ( prevent the player from playing) and damages or show cause. . The defendant (s) would have a right to ask for a ruling on a specified grounds and to appeal .

What will happen going forward is: teams when drafting Russian players will lower the prospect in the draft ( pick instead of 1st round maybe 3rd round) and complete a more through due diligence before drafting..

Unfortunately, there is no treaty between Canada and Russia regarding the reciprocal enforcement of judgments. As such, your statement is based on a completely invalid assumption.

As stated above, there is ZERO chance IMO of a Russian club being able to successfully obtain an injunction.

 

[Wetcoaster]

Unfortunately, there is no treaty between Canada and Russia regarding the reciprocal enforcement of judgments. As such, your statement is based on a completely invalid assumption.

As stated above, there is ZERO chance IMO of a Russian club being able to successfully obtain an injunction.

You do not need to enforce a foreign judgment - the suit is filed in North America.

 

[Montrealer]

I have actually worked on Russian projects, not to mention projects in the US, Mexico, Brazil, Jamaica, Chile, China, Germany, Taiwan, England, Ireland, Malaysia and even freaking Mongolia

Freaking Mongolia, which is just to the west of regular old Mongolia.

 

[Wetcoaster]

Wetcoaster, having done international transactions the world over for eleven years, I think I probably have you (and about 95% or more of other lawyers - even assuming you ARE a lawyer) thoroughly beat if you want to compare expertise. I have actually worked on Russian projects, not to mention projects in the US, Mexico, Brazil, Jamaica, Chile, China, Germany, Taiwan, England, Ireland, Malaysia and even freaking Mongolia, and have done worked with customers/JV partners/consortium partners/contractors in over a dozen other countries.

I have no need to read a Wikipedia internet summary for international law and conflict of laws, since I have actually practiced extensively in the area and studied it as well. Have you? Can you reference a file on which you have worked? It would appear not. Thanks so much for the reference though.

"Cases involving foreign contracts occur all the time. I have done anumber of them over the years." Well, ZERO is a number, I suppose. They do rarely come along, but I doubt you are being truthful regarding your involvement. Just my opinion, based on your posts.



In your example, the parties are not seeking to do anything regarding the Canadian contract. The Russians would be seeking to enforce (or prevent a breach of) the Russian contract. The Canadian contract would be valid in and of itself. It is not the subject matter of the litigation, though. The breach would be with respect to the Russian contract. That is the subject matter. The Russian courts are clearly the most appropriate forum in which to determine whether there is a breach. The club is Russian. The contract was entered into in Russia. THe contract was to play in Russia. As well, Russian law is applied.

While you are correct that it is POSSIBLE for a Canadian court to apply Russian laws, there are many restrictions on doing so (public policy, etc.). In addition, there are tons of ways to place obstacles in front of a Russian club (including the posting of security for costs).

I would be surprised if any Russian's player contract did not have a choice of laws and forum provision. Of course, if that is the case, the Russian club's hands would be tied in any event.

Furthermore, you are ven assumng that an injunction would be available. While this is an employment contract, and the player would have certain skills, there is no hockey player whose skills are so unique that the breach would not be compensable in damages (which inability, of course, is a precondition for obtaining an injunction). Given that the Canadian club would lead evidence indicating that there has been a long tradition of negotiating transfer fees for players over the years allowing them to walk away from Russian contracts and play in the NHL, I suggest to you that it is impossible for them to argue that a breach of any player's contract for services would not be compensable in damages. It will be dismissed in very short order.

I disagree.

Athletes, actors, musicians, etc, because of their skills are an exception to the usual rule against injunctions for employment contracts.

Take a look at Pennsylvania's long arm statute.

The tort would take place in the North American jurisdiction, that founds the jurisdiction. The Russian contract is simply pleaded as a matter of evidence and proved according to the usual conflict of law rules.

If you know as much as you claim then you would know as a lawyer I am forbidden from disclosing clients or describing cases in sufficient detail so that clients would be identifiable. That is forbidden. Solicitor-client confidentiality is absolute. You should know that if you have done what you claim.

Do you have law degree?

Have you actually studied conflict of laws at law school?

Have you ever conducted court cases and/or international commercial arbitrations with a foreign contract at issue?

My answers to all of the above questions is "Yes".

And your answer?

 

[Egil]

Sadly Wetcoaster, you burned up all your credibility with me during the lockout. gscarpenter for the win.

 

[Timmy]

If you know as much as you claim then you would know as a lawyer I am forbidden from disclosing clients or describing cases in sufficient detail so that clients would be identifiable. That is forbidden. Solicitor-client confidentiality is absolute. You should know that if you have done what you claim.

Actually, judgements are of the public record. PM GSC your name, and he can do a LexusNexus search and find some stuff you've done in the international arena and labour relations, contracts, etc...

 

[Jaded-Fan]

I do not need to get into the nuances of the law to read the reality in this case. Look at the parties actions, do not worry about the nuances of the law for our purposes right now. Some points to consider:

* Pens' seem to think that they have a pretty good chance of getting around that contract. Every action they take proves that more and more. So their lawyers obviously seem to think that they have a leg to stand on.

* The Russians seem to be worried about it as well.

* The NHL seems to think that absent this agreement it is open season on these players. Bettman threatened as much when he went over there to try to get Russia to sign. The Czechs then caved by the way. So the NHL attorneys must feel that these agreements are basically toilet paper.


And by the way, I do practice law, but not in this area. However, for whatever it is worth I did study years and years ago over in Europe and had some exposure to the goings on there. That and five dollars will get me a cup of coffee. But in the end law is the same no matter the area. If you can read the parties involved, their actions, you can get a better read at times what the parties actually think of their cases.

 

[GSC2k2*]

I disagree.

You are, of course, welcome to do so. I am comfortable in my views.

Athletes, actors, musicians, etc, because of their skills are an exception to the usual rule against injunctions for employment contracts.

The inviolable rule is that an injunction will not be issued in respect of a matter which is not compensable in damages. As I said, since this is a matter which has been and remains the subject matter of a dispute over transfer fees, the Russians are out of luck.

Take a look at Pennsylvania's long arm statute.

I am aware of the statute in question. However, the original discussion point was (and is) a Canadian team.

The tort would take place in the North American jurisdiction, that founds the jurisdiction. The Russian contract is simply pleaded as a matter of evidence and proved according to the usual conflict of law rules.

Well, you are not asking for an injunction in respect of a tort. You are trying to enjoin the player from breaching his contract. The tort of inducement to breach is not the subject matter of the injunction. For that matter, your incorrect argument contemplates that the negotiations and signing of the player's Canadian contract took place in Canada. More likely than not it would also have taken place in Russia when the team reps came over to secure the player's services.

If you know as much as you claim then you would know as a lawyer I am forbidden from disclosing clients or describing cases in sufficient detail so that clients would be identifiable. That is forbidden. Solicitor-client confidentiality is absolute. You should know that if you have done what you claim.

"IF" I have done what I claim? I feel pretty secure my my statements. Do you for yours?

As far as solictor-client privilege, you can certanly confirm whether you were counsel in respect of any matter that has come before a court, since that is recorded as such in th epleadings and accordingly is in the public domain. In addition, a cleint may permit such disclosure (take a look at any major firm's description of representative work).

Do you have law degree?

Osgoode Hall, 1987. Not only do i have a law degree, I am an actual practicing lawyer, and have been since i completed my articles and was called to the bar in 1989.

Have you actually studied conflict of laws at law school?

I will do you one better. As I indicated in my previous post, i have practiced in the field of infrastructure transactions for 13 years. Eleven of those years were spent in the area of international projects for (a) a leading manufacturer of power equipment and builder of power plants and related equipment (b) a leading Engineering & Construction company. I am fully versed in the field, both academically and in practice.

Have you ever conducted court cases and/or international commercial arbitrations with a foreign contract at issue?

I am a commercial lawyer, so I do not appear before the courts and have not done so since my articling year. However, in the course of my practice I have had carriage of a great many international contractual disputes. I retain outside counsel to appear for my companies. I determine the strategy and manner in which they are presented and make all of the decisions, however, as instructing counsel. There is no difference in any event.

My answers to all of the above questions is "Yes".

With respect, your posts indicate otherwise.

And your answer?

And there you have it. I will match my resume to yours any day. If you have not done any deals involving dollar figures with ten digits to the left of the decimal place, you may want to gracefully exit.

 

[GSC2k2*]

I do not need to get into the nuances of the law to read the reality in this case. Look at the parties actions, do not worry about the nuances of the law for our purposes right now. Some points to consider:

* Pens' seem to think that they have a pretty good chance of getting around that contract. Every action they take proves that more and more. So their lawyers obviously seem to think that they have a leg to stand on.

* The Russians seem to be worried about it as well.

* The NHL seems to think that absent this agreement it is open season on these players. Bettman threatened as much when he went over there to try to get Russia to sign. The Czechs then caved by the way. So the NHL attorneys must feel that these agreements are basically toilet paper.


And by the way, I do practice law, but not in this area. However, for whatever it is worth I did study years and years ago over in Europe and had some exposure to the goings on there. That and five dollars will get me a cup of coffee. But in the end law is the same no matter the area. If you can read the parties involved, their actions, you can get a better read at times what the parties actually think of their cases.

Excellent points on all fronts. I do appreciate in particular the points on the Russian contracts themselves. I doubt they are masterful documents.

 

[IdiotsPickedMyName*]

Do i need a law degree to post here too??

I may not be as elegant or intelligent as all these suits but i think i can safely sum up my argument as

Screw the russians! Let him play, especially if we don't need to pay

I made a rhymn

 

[Montrealer]

I made a rhymn

Well, the least you could do is clean it up.

 

[hameenlinna]

I'm sure there are plenty of Russian owners who see their NHL counterparts as bloasted cashcows, ripe for the milking.

The money Russian billionaires have in hockey is pocket change for them. I think this is about principle not about money. The owners the Russian clubs that opposed the deal are on the same line with the richest NHL team owners, some of them (like the Magnitogorsk guy forgot his name) are way ahead of them moneywise.

The refusal to accept the deal is bad for the smaller Russian clubs but it's good for players and good for hockey business as a whole as the NHL needs opposition to develop business-wise. I mean just look at how the GMs and owners blew up the old system with salaries.

Also, the new rookie salary system is unfair to players like Kaigorodov, Malkin etc. I don't think it will last, the NHL must do something about the entry level salaries after the expiration of this CBA.

 

[ArtG]

god I hate lawyers...

 

[GSC2k2*]

god I hate lawyers...

Intelligent commentary ...

 

[ArtG]

Intelligent commentary ...

that's my specialty

 

[GSC2k2*]

that's my specialty

Well played then ...

 

[Emule Richard]

Before I post on this thread, I better set out my qualifications. I just turned 21 and will be starting Law School in 2 weeks. I'm not a lawyer, but I have an interest in the field and have worked in the sport industry for over a year.

I am of the opinion that the Russian teams will be successful in attaining significant transfer fees for their players.

Like actors and musicians, athletes possess unique skills to the extent that each individual personal services contract provides significant value to the owner. It is nearly impossible for musicians to get out of their contracts with record labels, despite the label's actions...or lack thereof. If a high-profile actor agrees to do his next three movies through Disney - and after filming half of a movie decides to not honor his contract and to do movies in France - you can bet Disney will be successful in attaining an injunction or compensatory damages.

If Chris Pronger, who just signed a 5-year contract with the Edmonton Oilers, leaves for Russia at the end of this season, while the Edmonton Oilers have been building a long-term brand strategy around Chris Pronger...there will be significant consequences. If I'm not mistaken, when an NHL team is purchased, 50% of the purchase price can be attributed to the value of player contracts. This value can be amortized over 5 years - arguably, Chris Pronger's 5 year deal accounts for half of the Edmonton Oilers' value derived from player contracts = 25% of the value of the team. Therefore, there is significant value in player contracts - similar to an exclusive international joint venture between companies. Breach of the international joint venture agreement would result in significant damages, or if another company wants to wedge its way in to deal with one of the parties, it will have to purchase the right to do so.

In a similar way, if a Russian player has a 2 year contract and breaches it to play in North America, there is a breach of contract of value. As a result, compensation must be transferred in exchange for that valuable contract - whether it be in the form of damages or a transfer payment.

To me, the issue here, as in all business transactions, is value. Each party in a business transaction expects to gain something of value out of the contract. If there is a breach, there are consequences. It should be no different in the international business of hockey.

Private message me if you would like to chat/argue on MSN regarding these types of issues.

Richard

 

[Wetcoaster]

The inviolable rule is that an injunction will not be issued in respect of a matter which is not compensable in damages. As I said, since this is a matter which has been and remains the subject matter of a dispute over transfer fees, the Russians are out of luck.

The rule is not inviolable. That is basic first year contract law -I had to pull out my contracts outline from 1980 to refresh my memory. This has been so since the 1850's in Lumley v. Wagner. You have tobear in mind the differnce between a mandatroy injunction as opposed to a prohibotory injunction.

Lord Reid in Ridge v. Baldwin [1964] A.C. 40 (at p. 65) stated the general rule as: '... there cannot be specific performance of a contract of service, and the master can terminate the contract with his servant at any time and for any reason or for none'.

However Lord Denning in Hill v. Parsons [1972] Ch. 305, CA, carved out an exception. He relied upon Lumley v. Wagner where an opera singer was restricted to singing in one theatre only . He ruled the common law rule against the specific performance of an employment contract was not inflexible and permitted of exceptions:

"It may be said that, by granting an injunction in such a case, the court is indirectly enforcing specifically a contract for personal services. So be it. Lord St. Leonards did something like it in Lumley v Wagner. And I see no reason why we should not do it here."

Hill v. Parsons has subsequently been expanded to encompass numerous cases of unique or specially qualified employees where damages are deemed to not be sufficient to compensate the plaintiff.

The case that Denning relied upon is similar to the situation under discussion. In Lumley v Wagner the defendant contracted to sing for the plaintiff in his theatre for three months and, at the same time, not to sing elsewhere during this time without the plaintiff's consent. A third party, Gye, offered the defendant a larger sum to sing for him. The court stated that they had no power to make the defendant sing or encourage her to sing at the plaintiff's theatre. However, the court could persuade her to do so by preventing her singing elsewhere by imposing an injunction to that effect.

To similar effect is the case of Warner Bros v Nelson [1937] 1 KB 209 where the defendant, an actress (her stage name was Bette Davis), agreed (1) to act for the plaintiff and, at the same time, (2) not to act or sing for anybody else for two years without the plaintiff's written consent, and (3) no other employment could be taken up during this period without the plaintiff's consent. Davis(Nelson) was junior star at the time under contract to Warner brothers in the US when she moved to England to work in fims there. It was held that the defendant could be restrained by injunction from breaking the second undertaking. She would not be forced to act for the plaintiff because she could earn a living by doing other work. In that case the British courts upheld a US contract.

In the US similar legal developments have occurred.

Employees performing unique or extraordinary services

• It is also well accepted that non-competition restrictions will be
enforced if an employee's services are unique or extraordinary, though the cases actually finding that situation to exist are few and far between.
(See Earthweb, Inc. v. Schlack, 71 F. Supp. 2d 299, 313 (S.D.N.Y. 1999) (“Unique services†usually associated with categories of employees with special talents, such as professional athletes, musicians, or actors).

http://www.hhlaw.com/events/3_Can%2...ally Work.pdf

While a court will not issue a madatory injunction - i.e., Russuan player go play for your Russian team. A court has discretion to issue a prohibitory injunction - Russian player you may not play for this NHL team.

As I said, the Russian team could file a suit for injunctive relief in the relevant North American jurisdiction. The tort (tortious interference with contractual relations would be the claim I assume) would take place within the territorial jurisdiction of the defendant NHL team and the player would be within personal jursidiction of the court. That does not prevent a foreign defendant from filing suit and simply proving the existing foreign contract as a matter of evidence using the usual conflict of laws principles. The Russian tema would seek a prohibitory injunction. They are permissible in employment/personal service contracts involving professional athletes. Since it is an equitable remedy, it could be refused at the discretion of the court but the suiot would be well-founded IMHO.

I suppose we will have to wait to see occurs if the Russians do not sign the deal.

 

[GSC2k2*]

What an incredible display of obfuscation. Whenever I read your posts wherein you attempt to opine on legal matters, Wetcoaster, I am almost convinced that you may in fact be a lawyer in view of your tendency to attempt to confuse the issues and inundate the reader with a blizzard of case citations and rhetoric. At those points in time I get a little dismayed, as I often do when I read stuff from other lawyers who try to avoid an issue and take unnecessarily contrary positions; at those times I tend to bemoan those tendencies among my legal colleagues. Then I read your content and I am assuaged by the fact that the incoherency of your responses and plainly incorrect positions (such as would be determined by any first year lawyer or even an articling student) betray you as simply a poseur who possesses a very small amount of legal knowledge and tries to use it to impress people. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing indeed.

And rest assured: I do not believe you hold a degree in law. I would suspect you have taken a few courses in the law (perhaps on the layman side) and fancy yourself a legal "expert", and you try to pass yourself off as such on message boards such as this one, not expecting that you will be challenged. I went back a little to read some of your former posts just for s***s and giggles the other night, and was pleased to see that you have been so challenged and embarrassed on a regular basis by other lawyers. Apparently you have not learned your lesson.

Incidentally, if my belief is wrong and you do hold a law degree, I would be willing to bet you have not practiced. At that point, I would probably confess to be speechless that a guy with a law degree would post what you have posted on this board.

The rule is not inviolable. That is basic first year contract law -I had to pull out my contracts outline from 1980 to refresh my memory. This has been so since the 1850's in Lumley v. Wagner.

Yes, that rule is inviolable. It is not even a part of contract law. It is part of the law of injunctions, which is not related per se to contracts or torts. I would take this opportunity to note that your post (and the ones before it) shift haphazardly between the concept of torts and contracts. One second you are citing cases regaridng breaches of contract, and the next you are talking about tortious interference. Clearly you have no actual appreciation of the theory of your own position.

The rule is that injunctions will not be awarded if the matter is something that can be compensated for in damages (note: I previously said "not compensable", I inadvertently made the sentence a double negative in my haste). That is the entire point behind the injunctions awarded in respect of a few cases such as singers (Lumley v Wagner) and actresses (ie Bette Davis). Those talents in question were unique, and the damages were not properly compensable in damages.

You have tobear in mind the differnce between a mandatroy injunction as opposed to a prohibotory injunction.

There is a difference. The thing is this: IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE TOPIC AT HAND.

Lord Reid in Ridge v. Baldwin [1964] A.C. 40 (at p. 65) stated the general rule as: '... there cannot be specific performance of a contract of service, and the master can terminate the contract with his servant at any time and for any reason or for none'.

Another irrelevant cite. We are not talking about specific performance of a contract. The matter at hand is whether a Russian club could obtain an injunction in Canadian courts. No one is discussing whether the Russians could compel the player to play.

However Lord Denning in Hill v. Parsons [1972] Ch. 305, CA, carved out an exception. He relied upon Lumley v. Wagner where an opera singer was restricted to singing in one theatre only . He ruled the common law rule against the specific performance of an employment contract was not inflexible and permitted of exceptions:
Quote:
"It may be said that, by granting an injunction in such a case, the court is indirectly enforcing specifically a contract for personal services. So be it. Lord St. Leonards did something like it in Lumley v Wagner. And I see no reason why we should not do it here."

Again irrelevant. Denning was commenting on the unavailability of specific performance in relation to contracts of particular service.

Also, you are referring to an "exception". It has nothing to do with the inviolable rule that I am referring to. I am not saying it is an inviolable rule that contracts of performance are not subject to injunctions. The inviolable rule is that an injunction will not be awarded if the matter in question is something for which damages would constitute an adequate remedy. I repeat what i said above: that principle guides the cases about the injunction caselaw about unique talents working under specific services contracts. You entire post rambles on about exceptions to the rule about enforcement of personal services contracts. That is entirely not the point.

My conclusion? One of two possibilities are in play: (a) you have completely whiffed on this post; or (b) you are simply confusing matters intentionally by creating a strawman argument about something that no one else is discussing and going off on your own tangent in an effort to conceal your own initial misfire.

Hill v. Parsons has subsequently been expanded to encompass numerous cases of unique or specially qualified employees where damages are deemed to not be sufficient to compensate the plaintiff.

The case that Denning relied upon is similar to the situation under discussion. In Lumley v Wagner the defendant contracted to sing for the plaintiff in his theatre for three months and, at the same time, not to sing elsewhere during this time without the plaintiff's consent. A third party, Gye, offered the defendant a larger sum to sing for him. The court stated that they had no power to make the defendant sing or encourage her to sing at the plaintiff's theatre. However, the court could persuade her to do so by preventing her singing elsewhere by imposing an injunction to that effect.

Lumley and Wagner is indeed the seminal case in this area. However, it is beyond belief to suggest that a case involving a singer (or actress, in the Davis case) who has truly unique talents is equally applicable to a hockey player on a team of twenty whose talents are not truly unique and whose talents have been the subject of a monetary negotiation for transfer fees. In those cases, the nature of the performance provided by others is inherently different. When you go to see a singer at a concert or Bette Davis in a film, and you hear a different singer or watch another actress play the part, the experience is qualitiatively different. If you go see a hockey game, it is still a hockey game. You might have an argument regarding an athlete in an individual sport - not a team sport. And again, you have declined to answer the salient point: how can the breach in question not be compensable in damages when the player is the subject of a transfer fee negotiaiton when the Russian club is glad to transfer him in exchange for an appropriate sum????

To similar effect is the case of Warner Bros v Nelson [1937] 1 KB 209 where the defendant, an actress (her stage name was Bette Davis), agreed (1) to act for the plaintiff and, at the same time, (2) not to act or sing for anybody else for two years without the plaintiff's written consent, and (3) no other employment could be taken up during this period without the plaintiff's consent. Davis(Nelson) was junior star at the time under contract to Warner brothers in the US when she moved to England to work in fims there. It was held that the defendant could be restrained by injunction from breaking the second undertaking. She would not be forced to act for the plaintiff because she could earn a living by doing other work.

See above. This is not the point.

In that case the British courts upheld a US contract.

You mention this like it has ANY relevance to the subject matter. British courts enforcing a US contract is about a million light years from a Canadian court upholding a Russian contract (which is a civil code jurisdiction and has no jurisprudence in common with Canada).

In the US similar legal developments have occurred.

http://www.hhlaw.com/events/3_Can%2...ally Work.pdf

Sorry, your link did not work. Suffice it to say any cases you have cited to date would be easily distinguishable in the hands of a first year lawyer. I doubt the link points to anything more relevant than what you have posted to date.

While a court will not issue a madatory injunction - i.e., Russuan player go play for your Russian team. A court has discretion to issue a prohibitory injunction - Russian player you may not play for this NHL team.

Here you are confusing the question of whether the court has jurisdiction on a conflicts of law and forum non conveniens basis with the question of whether the court has jurisdiction to issue a prohibitory injunction. THe former is actually a relevant issue which was the subject of the preceding posts. The latter has no relevance.

As I said, the Russian team could file a suit for injunctive relief in the relevant North American jurisdiction. The tort (tortious interference with contractual relations would be the claim I assume) would take place within the territorial jurisdiction of the defendant NHL team and the player would be within personal jursidiction of the court.

As I mention above, you take all this trouble to construct a pitiful argument regaridng the ability to obtain an injunction for a breach of contract, and there you go introducing a theory of tortious interference. You may want to do a little better than thrashing around spitting out random theories; perhaps you may want to unify your thoughts into a more coherent argument.

Secondly, even if we were slice off a portion of our brain so as to ignore the inapplicability of your previous arguments to a tort argument, it would have taken place in the place where the player signed his contract. The NHL has plenty of lawyers on retainer whose sole duty would be to ensure that the team's location is not the jurisdiction of the "tort" and keep the Russina team form connecting this to the Candian jurisdiction. By having the player sign the contract in Russia, that is where the tort would occur. It matters not in any event, as the matter is a breach of contract. THe Russian team would be suing the party with whom they have a contract, if you want to be able to use all of the caselaw you previously cited ... unless you are just spewing out a few random legal principles and trying to fool anyoen into believing that it constitutes a valid legal position ... in which case you would be doing fine.

That does not prevent a foreign defendant from filing suit and simply proving the existing foreign contract as a matter of evidence using the usual conflict of laws principles. The Russian tema would seek a prohibitory injunction. They are permissible in employment/personal service contracts involving professional athletes. Since it is an equitable remedy, it could be refused at the discretion of the court but the suiot would be well-founded IMHO.

I suppose we will have to wait to see occurs if the Russians do not sign the deal.

It is an equitable remedy, which is one of the many reasons why it is not enforecable except in its own jurisdiction. Even assuming Russia and Canada had a regime for the reciprocal enforcement of judgments (which they do not, I believe - they certainly didn't when I was doing Russian deals in the late nineties), such legislation generally is applicable for monetary judgments of fixed sums and does not apply to equitable remedies. The Russian club's only recourse here is to obtain a judgmetn in Canada, come to Canada and try to obtain a monetary judgment there as well (which they would have to prove all over again, rather than simply obtaining recognition of their Russian judgment).

You have no hope here, champ.

 

[Wetcoaster]

You still miss the point.

The action for a prohibitory injunction is filed in the relevant North American jurisdiction (Pennsylvania or Ontario depending upon the player). The tort is here, the defendants are here, etc. There is no reciprocal enforcement issue involved. The suit happens here and the injunction applies here. The court would say - You Russian player cannot play for that NHL team. Seems pretty straightforward.

The Warner v. Nelson case seems spot on.

And yes I have a law degree and yes I have practised and yes I have had Russian clients, both private and state-affliated. I have done international commmercial arbitration cases on behalf of Russian clients.

 

[Sinurgy]

Intelligent commentary ...

He was talking about lawyers, what does intelligence have to do with anything?

 

[GSC2k2*]

You still miss the point.

The action for a prohibitory injunction is filed in the relevant North American jurisdiction (Pennsylvania or Ontario depending upon the player). The tort is here, the defendants are here, etc. There is no reciprocal enforcement issue involved. The suit happens here and the injunction applies here. The court would say - You Russian player cannot play for that NHL team. Seems pretty straightforward.

So you have now decided that it tort in which you are founding your position? At least we have established that.

Putting aside the fact that you have no valid position on the choice of forum since the balance of convenience (place of contract, applicable law, etc.) massively favors the Russian courts as the appropriate jurisdiction, and putting aside the fact that Russian player contracts would in all likelihood designate the Russian courts as the exclusive forum in any event, you STILL have not responded to the basic point that an injunction is not available unless the damages being sustained are not compensable by money. And you still have not responded to the even more basic point that one can point to the transfer fee negotiation and the Russian club's willingness to allow their contracts to be unilaterally terminated so long as they receive enough money as the clearest evidence that such breach is compensable by monetary damages.

The Warner v. Nelson case seems spot on.

Not quite, chap. Since you have gone to the trouble of finally defining this theoretical injunction application as a tort claim, one must point out that Warner is a claim founded solely on breach of contract and is accordingly completely distinguishable and of no application. Furthermore, Warner involved an application against the talent in question (pursuant to the provisions of her contract), whereas your injunction application would apparently be against the TEAM, with whom there is no privity of contract. The principles are different. Opposite the team, it is a simple tort claim based on tortious interference; any caselaw related to the ability to enforce a non-compete clause in respect of "unique talent" by way of an injunction has no relation to that. It is a tort claim for which monetary damages would (if successful) be awarded. Unfortunately for your position, you seem to have jumbled up a whole slew of disparate legal theories, and the jumbled-up mess does not hold up to any scrutiny.

And yes I have a law degree and yes I have practised and yes I have had Russian clients, both private and state-affliated. I have done international commmercial arbitration cases on behalf of Russian clients.

As promised, I am speechless. Color me amazed if it is in fact true (which I will continue to doubt, short of written documentation). Perhaps you can favour me with your school and year of call, as I did earlier. Just curious.