Quote:
Originally Posted by Smarti5051
I think both sides have been fleshed out pretty well, so there is not really any novel argument to make at this point. The fact we are on Page 4 of the "Tastes great, less filling" debate suggests there is no definitive answer. As a newer member, I don't want to ruffle any feathers on this board, as I enjoy it. But, calling one side or the other "wrong" does not really advance either position. And, pointing to one's credentials to definitively state what a jury would or wouldn't do seems like an unproductive flex. Even though I feel confident I could get a verdict for the defendant with the facts presented, whether by jury or bench trial, I do not believe the matter is so clear cut that it precludes either party prevailing.
And, if my perspective can only be appreciated if accompanied by my credentials, I will say that clients foolishly paid the law firm I worked for over $700/hour for my thoughts before I left litigation 15 years ago to do something productive with my life.
|
I'm an old CPA and worked and dealt with a ton of attorneys over the years, and have great respect and admiration for most all of them. As I told Peter, I'm looking and thinking of this as a juror, because if this does end up in court it will likely be a jury that decides it. I was telling Carter he was outright wrong in saying the seller could not deliver the last football Brady ever threw for a TD because right now, that football auctioned off is the last one he ever threw for a TD. He's using typical lawyer-speak and lawyer-logic to claim that isn't the last one simply because Brady says he's unretired. So following that logic and argument then, from at least one attorney's thinking, you can't ever sell any football Brady threw for a TD as his last one till he's dead, or permanently disabled, so you finally know for certain he's never playing again. Right? Because even he retires, he can apparently un-retire whenever he wants, as long as some NFL team will give him a spot. But that is not logical nor makes much sense to an average, normal person.
Were I on the jury hearing this trial, upon going in to start the deliberations I would bring up to my fellow jurors how the argument that Brady unretiring lets the buyer off the hook because the football was not as described is pure BS! At the time it was listed for sale it was exactly as described, and even that doesn't change until he actually throws another TD. I would ask my fellow jurors if a reasonable person would have believed that the auction description was fair and accurate at the time it was listed, through the auction's end. And if so, how can the buyer not have likely had the exact same feelings and thinking about the football, especially when he's going to spend $500K on it? And to drive the point home, I'd look my fellow jurors in the eye and simply ask them if when Brady announced his retirement, did any of them ever think he'd throw another TD pass again. Want to speculate on what the overwhelming response would probably be? And since this would be a civil trial, it normally doesn't have to be a unanimous decision to win, right? Next I'd bring up the question as to what if Brady did retire, but only for a year, and then came back in 2023 to throw more TDs. The buyer would have paid for and owned this football for well over a year now. So how do you honestly think an average, everyday, normal person would think and respond to some attorney trying to tell them that the buyer should still be able to negate the sale and get all their money back because the AH supposedly lied to them? I don't see that attorney getting a lot of sympathetic jurors on their side. And because of that last question, I would point out to my fellow jurors that what we really need to focus on is what the AH auction/sales agreement says, and how that correlates to the applicable state law to then determine when the transaction became enforceable and the chance of gain or loss from owning the football is transferred from the seller to the buyer. And if that transfer occurred and became enforceable prior to Brady's announcement he was going to un-retire, too bad seller, pay up. But if the transfer and enforceability doesn't kick in till after Brady's announcement, we'll need to take a little deeper look and think about letting the buyer off the hook.
You need to look at this from the standpoint of the actual common, ordinary people that would likely decide this case, not from the POV of lawyer-speak/logic attorneys who will rightly be doing everything they can for their clients, but possibly putting out some real stupid logic and BS to do so. This kind of debate always makes me go back and smile when I think of one of my favorite attorney quotes of all time. Bill Clinton's famous testimony statement: "I did not have sexual relations with that woman!". Man, talk about a crock of $#%@.
And don't even go there about him not being a practicing attorney at the time, that would be a perfect example of using lawyer-speak/logic in trying to argue your way out of something when really know the other person is right!.
03-15-2022, 10:03 PM
Similar Threads
Hybrid Mode
