Senator Specter on Terrell Owens

Dave Hoffman

Dave Hoffman is the Murray Shusterman Professor of Transactional and Business Law at Temple Law School. He specializes in law and psychology, contracts, and quantitative analysis of civil procedure. He currently teaches contracts, civil procedure, corporations, and law and economics.

You may also like...

2 Responses

  1. Skid says:

    Ok, as a 3L, my last contact with contract law was first year, but, under standard contract law, if a party is found to have breached a contract, then aren’t the remedies essentially damages or specific performance? I mean, this seems like a decent case for specific performance (unique skills, etc), but once the contract has been found void and the remedies paid, then isn’t the contract no longer enforceable? I didn’t quite say that right, but, an example might make the point better:

    In a construction contract, once there is a breach, and the defendant pays his remedies, at that point, there is no contract anymore between the parties, right?

    So, in this case, doesn’t it make a difference if TO was found to have breached the contract, as opposed to engaging in conduct detrimental to the team? In other words, if he had breached his contract, shouldn’t he a) pay back his salary and be a free agent or b) in equity have to perform under the contract? Or, is the arbiter’s decision basically specific performance?

  2. acs says:

    what the team is actually doing is “paying” him his game check each week (the amount of which i forget), but at the same time they garnish the entire amount of the check and set it off against the 1.8M+ (i think — i’m a little hazy on amounts) of prorated signing bonus that the team is trying to recover from him. so he’s effectively paying them not to be allowed to play.