Would you follow through and pay? Brady's last TD

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Tyruscobb

The written description says it’s Brady’s final career touchdown. This is currently a true statement. Brady could change his mind before the season starts and re-retire. Maybe a bus hits Brady while he is crossing the street. The description was accurate based on all available information, and it technically still is Brady final career TD.

Remember when Jim Palmer was coming out of retirement (as a HoF) until he decided to stay retired? The buyer also assumed the risk that Brady would stay retired. The buyer is not an innocent rube in the woods. There was always a chance Brady came back. Heck, maybe this exact risk is why the ball went for $500k and not $750k or $1M.

A person with $500k to spend on a football is likely an educated and sophisticated buyer. He/she got exactly what he/she bargained for and knew the risks - that Brady could un-retire - going into the auction. Assumption of the risk.

The issue in my mind doesn't depend on Leland's being inaccurate or at fault. The notion of frustration of purpose is a fairness doctrine based on changed circumstances beyond either party's control. I don't think assumption of risk is a contract concept so much as a tort concept, but it's been a while. Anyhow, your argument is of course the one I would make if on Leland's side, and it's a great problem that would fit well someday in a law school class.

[Tyruscobb]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

The issue in my mind doesn't depend on Leland's being inaccurate or at fault. The notion of frustration of purpose is a fairness doctrine based on changed circumstances beyond either party's control. I don't think assumption of risk is a contract concept so much as a tort concept, but it's been a while. Anyhow, your argument is of course the one I would make if on Leland's side, and it's a great problem that would fit well someday in a law school class.

Do you think the buyer had a multi-year window to file suit for a contract breach? Most states have around a four year statute of limitations. So, if Brady hypothetically stays retired, and then elects to come back three years from now, could the buyer still file suit for breach of contract, because it seller didn’t deliver Brady’s final career TD ball?

This fact pattern makes for a great one L issue spotter exam.

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by Tyruscobb

Do you think the buyer had a multi-year window to file suit for a contract breach? Most states have around a four year statute of limitations. So, if Brady hypothetically stays retired, and then elects to come back three years from now, could the buyer still file suit for breach of contract, because it seller didn’t deliver Brady’s final career TD ball?

This fact pattern makes for a great one L issue spotter exam.

Agree. Throw in some subsequent sales too.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Tyruscobb

Do you think the buyer had a multi-year window to file suit for a contract breach? Most states have around a four year statute of limitations. So, if Brady hypothetically stays retired, and then elects to come back three years from now, could the buyer still file suit for breach of contract, because it seller didn’t deliver Brady’s final career TD ball?

This fact pattern makes for a great one L issue spotter exam.

If he pays and later tries to rescind if Brady comes back years later, my initial thought is yeah as long as it's within the statute. Is there some separate source of repose here? Not sure.

[Harliduck]

If the auction is canceled, which I think it should be, I do feel sorry for the guy who caught the ball and was scheduled to have a nice payday. What a roller coaster for him as well.

Never know, any buyer who can afford this may just want to keep the ball anyhow...