Port Melbourne to sue the Swans !

[Cheer Cheer]

Just heard on the news that the Port Melbourne Footy Club are going to sue the Sydney Swans for breaking the contract they had between the two clubs to play this year out with their reserves playing for Port Melbourne.
Sounds serious, I'm surprised I havent seen anything on here as yet.
More to come I would assume i.e articles , news stories.
Keep your eyes peeled.

[liz]

It was mooted at the time the Swans announced they were discontinuing their association.

How bad it is for the Swans financially will depend a lot on how much Port can demonstrate they have "lost", unless there are specific penalty clauses in the contract. Given they have now hooked up with NM, that may not be a huge amount.

[Jimmy C]

Swans and Port have had rivallry of different sorts over the years. Unusual, given the amount of players who have come and gone between the two teams, however, its existed. More fuel to the fire. Hope we don't get slugged for more than is owed (I wonder if they'll try to claim psychological damages).

[EMJ]

The reason they want money from us is because we pulled out I guess. But the bottom line of an article on "Real Footy" says Port receiving far less money from North Melbourne than they did from Sydney - Sour Grapes!!!!

[Donners]

I said at the time it would end up costing far more money that it would save. It's hard to believe the Sydney people who made this decision were incapable of recognising that.

[robbieando]

Just remember the Swans would not of broken the contract if they could be sued and Port win the action, so I think when it goes to court I feel the Swans will win.

[Dpw]

Originally posted by robbieando
Just remember the Swans would not of broken the contract if they could be sued and Port win the action, so I think when it goes to court I feel the Swans will win.

Can't agree there swans most likely balanced the cost of the contract and the action and measured it againist the gains of breaking the contract and took it from there.

[robbieando]

Look knowing contract law like I do, I know the Swans would of known that they would be sued if they broke the contract, thus they would of made sure they were in a sound legal footing, thus its unlikely that Port would either win, or if they did win that they wouldn't end up winning much. The Swans would not of broken the contract if there was a huge risk that we could end up oweing even more money.

[Doctor J.]

Originally posted by robbieando
Look knowing contract law like I do, ...

My god Robbie, you are now a specialist in the intricacies of contract law. Well I've got a job for you mate. See if you can fix up this bloody mess between the AFL and the MCC over where the Prelim final will be played. Been a bit of a problem for the gurus down at the AFL for the last couple of years. Get on the phone and give Jacko a call, I'm sure he would appreciate it.

[robbieando]

I'm studying Contract Law at the moment and without more information I can only guess at whats going on and thats why I think the Swans are OK. Give me the full facts and I would be able to tell you if we are in troble or not.

As for the AFL/MCC agreement the clubs can do **** and the deal stays as is.

[floppinab]

I know the Swans would of known that they would be sued if they broke the contract, thus they would of made sure they were in a sound legal footing, thus its unlikely that Port would either win, or if they did win that they wouldn't end up winning much.

Or, my guess is more likely, they took a punt that,

a) Port would get a deal with someone else that would get them enough to keep them happy

and/or

b) they wouldn't have the resources to litigate anyway.

I hope you're right Robbie but I've got a sneaky feeling my synopsis might be closer to the truth.
Regardless, can't see them getting out this with some sort of extra cost. Did the Swans have a go at negotiating out of this before Port decided to hit the courts???

[robbieando]

The problem is that there is no facts to look into this properly so I would only be guessing otherwise. I'm taking the side that the Swans broke the contract having a reason to do so under the contract. But again without fact I can't really say.

[tez]

Having lectured in Contract Control and Administration
for a few years and working with contracts daily it is
all opinion as Robbieando says. Without actually
reading the contract document no assessment could be
made. Some of the ways out of a contract are to actually
complete it, the legality of its purpose, the effusion of time,
or there is a fundamental breach by either of the parties.
It is then up to the aggrieved party to prove the breach and
they suffered a loss or damages from it.

Should the club have made a commercial decision and
deliberatley breached the contract on the basis that any
perceived loss or damages they may incur be less than
the benefit they get from that decision makes sense to me.