PDA

View Full Version : Old news, but funny - Portis is a jersey thief.


Rain Man
01-08-2005, 07:33 PM
I meant to post this a while back, but forgot, and I never saw a thread about it. My apologies if it's already been discussed and debated.

http://www.wjla.com/news/stories/1204/197188.html

Arizona's Ohalete Files Jersey Complaint
Wednesday December 29, 2004 8:19pm


ASHBURN, Va. (AP) - Arizona Cardinals safety Ifeanyi Ohalete filed a complaint Wednesday against Washington's Clinton Portis, claiming the Redskins (website - news) ' running back failed to pay a promised $40,000 for a jersey number.

The breach of contract complaint was filed in Maryland District Court in Upper Marlboro by Ohalete's attorney, John Steren.

"This is a last resort to get back what he's owed," Steren told The Associated Press.

When Portis was traded to the Redskins in March, he was unhappy that he could not wear 26, the number he had in his two seasons with the Denver Broncos. The number already belonged to Ohalete, who had been with the Redskins for three seasons.

"I held up my end of our deal and gave him my number. All I am asking is that he does what he agreed to do, and hold up his end of the deal as well. I don't think that is asking too much."

No court date has been set for the complaint. Steren said Portis could resolve the matter by paying the money.

Portis did not return a message left through a Redskins spokesman.

It is common in sports for athletes to negotiate for jersey numbers. Portis' attempts to get the number from Ohalete came shortly after the running back signed a $50.5 million contract with $17 million in bonuses.

Count Zarth
01-08-2005, 07:34 PM
I wonder if Portis melted down his championship belt and turned it into gold teeth to replace all the ones he lost getting pummeled in Washington?

Ari Chi3fs
01-08-2005, 07:34 PM
class act.

Boozer
01-08-2005, 08:18 PM
:deevee: How come I never get assigned cases like this? Open and shut breach of contract, with no statute of frauds concerns.

Rain Man
01-08-2005, 08:45 PM
:deevee: How come I never get assigned cases like this? Open and shut breach of contract, with no statute of frauds concerns.

But did they have it written? Does that matter? Do newspaper reports documenting the exchange come into play? I'm just curious.

Phobia
01-08-2005, 09:02 PM
I think it's just pathetic. First of all, the dickhead is such a crybaby he can't accept his assigned number - that's excusable. I can handle that.

But then when you reach an agreement for $40k, pay it.

$40k is a lot of money for me. But, when you're talking about $40k out of $20 Million?

That's 1/5,000th of his signing bonus. 1/5,000th of my annual check is roughly $20. This dude is welshing over $20.

Somebody needs to break his knee.

Boozer
01-08-2005, 09:15 PM
But did they have it written? Does that matter? Do newspaper reports documenting the exchange come into play? I'm just curious.

"Statute of Frauds," as the name might imply, is a legislative enactment (often, more than one), so the applicable law varies from state to state. Generally, it's a law that requires certain contracts to be in writing (in the absence of statutes, oral contracts are just as good as written contracts). The most common contracts subject to the writing requirement are sales of land, contracts not performable within one year, contracts not performable within the lifetime of the promisor, and sales of goods over $500. For the most part, if a contract is covered by the statute of frauds and isn't in writing, then it doesn't matter that you can prove it otherwise, it's unenforceable. However, if a contract is not required to be in writing, newspaper accounts and the like are quite helpful to prove that the oral contract existed.

ENDelt260
01-08-2005, 09:19 PM
I think I actually know less after Boozer's last post.

Rain Man
01-08-2005, 09:21 PM
So does that mean that oral contracts actually have validity for services? I'm just curious because we've had a couple of market research clients in the past few years who have told us we were hired, and then a week later said that we weren't. Not that I would sue them over it, but I'm just curious.

Boozer
01-08-2005, 09:22 PM
I think I actually know less after Boozer's last post.

I'm certainly a lot drunker after finishing typing that post.

Boozer
01-08-2005, 09:25 PM
So does that mean that oral contracts actually have validity for services? I'm just curious because we've had a couple of market research clients in the past few years who have told us we were hired, and then a week later said that we weren't. Not that I would sue them over it, but I'm just curious.

Yeah, so long as you couldn't possibly finish the job within a year. In reality, for a contract of any size, you'd better have it in writing in the post-Joe Jamail era.

Rain Man
01-08-2005, 09:32 PM
Cool. Let me know what I owe you.

Ultra Peanut
01-08-2005, 09:34 PM
I think I actually know less after Boozer's last post.I didn't even try to read it.

Boozer
01-08-2005, 09:34 PM
Cool. Let me know what I owe you.

Nah, that's all gratis, since it wasn't legal advice, because that would be illegal.

Now, the firm I'm working for this summer has a location in Colorado, so if you need some work done a year and a half from now, tell them I sent you.

ENDelt260
01-08-2005, 09:35 PM
I didn't even try to read it.
I gave it a half-assed effort. If I would've really paid attention, I might've learned something.

When Boozer lived in AZ, I learned things hanging out at the bar with him all the time. We never got laid, but I felt a lot smarter at the end of the night.

Boozer
01-08-2005, 09:36 PM
I gave it a half-assed effort. If I would've really paid attention, I might've learned something.

When Boozer lived in AZ, I learned things hanging out at the bar with him all the time. We never got laid, but I felt a lot smarter at the end of the night.

Once I moved away and stopped hanging out with you, I got laid more often, but now I'm dumberer.

ENDelt260
01-08-2005, 09:38 PM
Once I moved away and stopped hanging out with you, I got laid more often, but now I'm dumberer.
I only got dumberer.