PDA

View Full Version : Tennis promoter must pay court costs for Venus and Serena Williams and their father


Denise4925
Apr 24th, 2007, 07:37 PM
I don't know if this has already been posted. If so, please let me know and I will delete it.


http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/palmbeach/sfl-pwilliams24apr24,0,580957.story?track=rss
Tennis promoter must pay court costs for Venus and Serena Williams and their father




By Missy Diaz
South Florida Sun-Sentinel

April 24, 2007



A judge on Monday said CCKR, a company that tried to put on a 2001 Battle of the Sexes match with tennis stars Venus and Serena Williams, must pay court costs for the sisters and their father, Richard.

However, Circuit Judge Jeffrey Winikoff denied a request to have the company pay Richard Williams' attorney fees. Venus and Serena Williams did not ask for attorney fees.

In December, jurors found that Richard Williams breached a contract with Carol Clarke and Keith Rhodes, principals of CCKR, to have his daughters play in the tennis exhibition, but they awarded no damages. Neither Venus nor Serena Williams was found to have breached the contract.

It was the second time the case had gone to trial. This first case ended in a mistrial.

Richard Williams and his company, Richard Williams Tennis & Associates, plan to ask for $70,000 in court costs, according to his attorney, Jan Michael Morris. The Williams sisters will seek about $255,000, said lawyer F. Malcolm Cunningham Jr.

The costs paid for things like expert witnesses and depositions, the lawyer said.
Copyright © 2007, South Florida Sun-Sentinel

frontier
Apr 24th, 2007, 07:47 PM
serves them right for being greedy,i think they were big wigs financing these bogus promoters .this should teach them a lesson that they should work for their own living .

dreamgoddess099
Apr 24th, 2007, 09:47 PM
Damn that's funny as hell. They tried the sue the Williamses, but ended up having to pay them money. :haha:

Denise4925
Apr 24th, 2007, 09:56 PM
Damn that's funny as hell. They tried the sue the Williamses, but ended up having to pay them money. :haha:

:lol: It's called greed. I mainly posted this for Swampi Marjorie's benefit, seeing as how she's always accusing Serena of perjury, when Serena wasn't even found to have breached the contract.

I still don't get how they found Richard liable when it was proven that he couldn't bind Vee and Rena to the contract. How did he breach if he couldn't perform what he promised. It wasn't that he was able to and didn't...he couldn't. The contract was void, i.e. not legally enforceable.

kiwifan
Apr 24th, 2007, 10:31 PM
:lol: It's called greed. I mainly posted this for Swampi Marjorie's benefit, seeing as how she's always accusing Serena of perjury, when Serena wasn't even found to have breached the contract.

I still don't get how they found Richard liable when it was proven that he couldn't bind Vee and Rena to the contract. How did he breach if he couldn't perform what he promised. It wasn't that he was able to and didn't...he couldn't. The contract was void, i.e. not legally enforceable.

But if he holds himself out as an agent for his daughters and third parties rely on his claim to their detriment...of course Richard is liable :lol: :tape:...however the question of damages is mitigated by the third party's failure to do their due dilligence in actually approaching The Queen and Mama Smash. ;)

In fact, based on the ruling of the court, the third party probably didn't do their due dilligence because they probably knew that the deal would fall apart if they took the obvious and reasonable actions of speaking to The Sisters. :devil:

Richard is lucky that this wasn't a Hollywood deal to do a movie :scared: (the Sisters would have still been fine but Richard would have gotten nailed for part of the pre-production costs). ;) see Kim Bassinger and Boxing Helena

kiwifan
Apr 24th, 2007, 10:42 PM
PS. Richard's breach could be of the agreement he make with the promoters. Even when you contract for something that you have no rights to, if you agree to perform you must perform to the best of your ability. I'd imagine any evidence that he agreed to get his daughters involved and then didn't actually even attempt to get his daughters involved would be a breach.

I have a friend with a "movie worthy" life story and I enter into a contract to secure the rights to his life story but then do nothing...

...breach. :shrug:

In this case his "best efforts" might be considered the implied contract that was breached.

Once again, no damages because the third party reasonably should have known that the third party didn't have...

...Privity!!!...

...The doctrine of privity in contract law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contract_law) provides that a contract (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contract) cannot confer rights or impose obligations arising under it on any person or agent except the parties to it.

They did have privity with Richard Williams since he actually signed the contract, right?

They should have made him play a little tennis. :lol: :lol: :tape:

Denise4925
Apr 24th, 2007, 10:44 PM
But if he holds himself out as an agent for his daughters and third parties rely on his claim to their detriment...of course Richard is liable :lol: :tape:...however the question of damages is mitigated by the third party's failure to do their due dilligence in actually approaching The Queen and Mama Smash. ;)

Okay, that would be fraud. Forgot about that. :o

kiwifan
Apr 24th, 2007, 10:47 PM
Okay, that would be fraud. Forgot about that. :o

Trust me, I had to sit and think a second or two before I posted. ;)

It could be a couple of multi-state questions (not quite worthy of an essay). :cool:

Denise4925
Apr 24th, 2007, 10:58 PM
PS. Richard's breach could be of the agreement he make with the promoters. Even when you contract for something that you have no rights to, if you agree to perform you must perform to the best of your ability. I'd imagine any evidence that he agreed to get his daughters involved and then didn't actually even attempt to get his daughters involved would be a breach.

I have a friend with a "movie worthy" life story and I enter into a contract to secure the rights to his life story but then do nothing...

...breach. :shrug:

In this case his "best efforts" might be considered the implied contract that was breached.

Once again, no damages because the third party reasonably should have known that the third party didn't have...

...Privity!!!...

...

They did have privity with Richard Williams since he actually signed the contract, right?

They should have made him play a little tennis. :lol: :lol: :tape:

Yes, there was privity of contract between Richard the con artists plaintiffs, however, but of a void contract.

Again, the privity question comes up. Where was the evidence of the agency contract between Richard and the Sisters? Would a reasonable person rely on the word of Richard Williams that he was their agent and could bind them to a contractual appearance, especially when there was evidence to the contrary. The whole world knew that they were represented by a sports agency.

Best efforts??? Implied contract?? Hmmm, that's kind of stretching it a bit for me. How can there be a breach of a contract that is void to begin with. The only breach is the fraud to induce the plaintiff's to sign.

Denise4925
Apr 24th, 2007, 11:03 PM
Trust me, I had to sit and think a second or two before I posted. ;)

It could be a couple of multi-state questions (not quite worthy of an essay). :cool:

Yeah, this issue would be a good one. But, here in Texas, contracts is a part of the multi-state part. LOL and thank God for that.

kiwifan
Apr 24th, 2007, 11:14 PM
Yes, there was privity of contract between Richard the con artists plaintiffs, however, but of a void contract.

Again, the privity question comes up. Where was the evidence of the agency contract between Richard and the Sisters? Would a reasonable person rely on the word of Richard Williams that he was their agent and could bind them to a contractual appearance, especially when there was evidence to the contrary. The whole world knew that they were represented by a sports agency.

Best efforts??? Implied contract?? Hmmm, that's kind of stretching it a bit for me. How can there be a breach of a contract that is void to begin with. The only breach is the fraud to induce the plaintiff's to sign.

Its not like he doesn't know them, they're his daughters. :lol:

That should be enough evidence to get you into court and then from there its a question of fact.

No a reasonable person wouldn't. That's why the fools didn't get paid. :tape:

That's what I used to do for a living, try to break contracts. When you have the signatures on a piece of paper...its supposed to mean something, isn't it? :angel: I'll give you "stretch" but only a itty bitty stretch. :devil:

I think a signature has meaning and imposes an obligation on the signing party...I'm comfortable with Richard having an implied duty to employ his best efforts simply because he signed the contract.

And if Richard "really meant it" at the moment he was signing then it wouldn't be fraud would it? I'm thinking of a need for mens rea wrt fraud v simple implied duty for the anyone who signs a contract right now and that means I need to leave this thread and never return :banghead:...

but it was fun, gettin' all legal again...

...being "in-house" for the last few years means the legal thought muscles "In Me Brain" are in atrophy :spit: :haha:

:wavey: :bolt:

hotandspicey
Apr 25th, 2007, 12:31 AM
:lol: It's called greed. I mainly posted this for Swampi Marjorie's benefit, seeing as how she's always accusing Serena of perjury, when Serena wasn't even found to have breached the contract.

I still don't get how they found Richard liable when it was proven that he couldn't bind Vee and Rena to the contract. How did he breach if he couldn't perform what he promised. It wasn't that he was able to and didn't...he couldn't. The contract was void, i.e. not legally enforceable.

That's who came to mind too when I first saw the thread. :devil: How does pie taste again?:lol:

Denise4925
Apr 25th, 2007, 05:33 AM
Its not like he doesn't know them, they're his daughters. :lol:

That should be enough evidence to get you into court and then from there its a question of fact.

No a reasonable person wouldn't. That's why the fools didn't get paid. :tape:

That's what I used to do for a living, try to break contracts. When you have the signatures on a piece of paper...its supposed to mean something, isn't it? :angel: I'll give you "stretch" but only a itty bitty stretch. :devil:

I think a signature has meaning and imposes an obligation on the signing party...I'm comfortable with Richard having an implied duty to employ his best efforts simply because he signed the contract.

And if Richard "really meant it" at the moment he was signing then it wouldn't be fraud would it? I'm thinking of a need for mens rea wrt fraud v simple implied duty for the anyone who signs a contract right now and that means I need to leave this thread and never return :banghead:...

but it was fun, gettin' all legal again...

...being "in-house" for the last few years means the legal thought muscles "In Me Brain" are in atrophy :spit: :haha:

:wavey: :bolt:

First Richard knew or should have known that he wasn't their agent and couldn't bind them to a contract. It doesn't matter whether his intentions were good. So, I would think that any argument that he had an implied duty to use his best efforts is fruitless, even if they couldn't prove fraud. But, I agree that them being his daughters is what got them to trial, otherwise I think it would have been a question of law.

The problem is that I'm in-house too. I negotiate and write the damn things, but never litigate them when it comes to any kind of breach, so yeah I can identify with the atrophy of the legal thought process in trying to prove or disprove a breach. :lol:

But, yeah you bring up some good issues, flimsy, but good. Just little red herrings. :devil:

Mother_Marjorie
Apr 27th, 2007, 07:19 PM
:lol: It's called greed. I mainly posted this for Swampi Marjorie's benefit, seeing as how she's always accusing Serena of perjury, when Serena wasn't even found to have breached the contract.

I still don't get how they found Richard liable when it was proven that he couldn't bind Vee and Rena to the contract. How did he breach if he couldn't perform what he promised. It wasn't that he was able to and didn't...he couldn't. The contract was void, i.e. not legally enforceable.

Williams Sisters' Father Liable in Suit

By BRIAN SKOLOFF
The Associated Press
Thursday, December 21, 2006; 4:44 PM

WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. -- The father of tennis stars Venus and Serena Williams is liable but doesn't have to pay damages in a lawsuit that claimed he reneged on a deal for his daughters to play in an exhibition match.

A jury Thursday cleared Venus Williams of all allegations but said Serena Williams let her father act as an agent for her. Neither sister must pay damages.

The Williams sisters expressed relief at the verdict.

"Venus and I would really like to thank the jury again because they really were able to see the truth in this matter," Serena Williams said.

Added Venus Williams: "We're ready to start a new chapter in our lives." Attorney for the Williams' father also said they consider the verdict a victory.

The dispute centered on whether Richard Williams had authority to commit his daughters to play in a 2001 "Battle of the Sexes" match that never took place. Venus and Serena Williams testified during the more than monthlong trial that only they have authority to approve contracts.

Promoters Carol Clarke and Keith Rhodes, owners of a company called CCKR, brought the breach of contract lawsuit.

"The first thing I said to the jury is this case is about the sanctity of a contract. And the jury understood that," said John Romano, the promoters' attorney. "To say that I'm disappointed would be the understatement of the century."

Romano said he almost certainly will appeal.

Richard Williams acknowledged drawing up terms of the agreement with the promoters, but insisted he told them they would have to go through the IMG sports agency, which represents Venus and Serena, to complete any deal. The promoters said he made no such disclaimer.

Richard Williams also acknowledged he lied to the promoters when he told them his daughters were aware of the negotiations. Both sisters testified they knew nothing of the deal and never would have agreed to play in the match.

Despite the agreement with Richard Williams, the sisters' attorney, F. Malcolm Cunningham, noted to jurors in closing arguments that neither Venus nor Serena signed anything.

Throughout the trial, attorneys for the promoters showed jurors tax returns that indicate payments to Richard Williams by his daughters for management fees, bolstering their contention that he had authority to sign contracts for them.

However, attorneys for the sisters and their father claimed the payments were mischaracterized for tax purposes and that Richard Williams is not their manager and was paid merely for coaching services.

The promoters sued the sisters, their father and his company, Richard Williams Tennis & Associates, for unspecified damages. They claimed the tournament could have made about $45 million, of which 80 percent was to go to Richard Williams' company. An initial trial last year ended in a mistrial.

Vlover
Apr 27th, 2007, 07:41 PM
A[QUOTE] judge on Monday said CCKR, a company that tried to put on a 2001 Battle of the Sexes match with tennis stars Venus and Serena Williams, must pay court costs for the sisters and their father, Richard.
Neither Venus nor Serena Williams was found to have breached the contract.

Richard Williams and his company, Richard Williams Tennis & Associates, plan to ask for $70,000 in court costs, according to his attorney, Jan Michael Morris. The Williams sisters will seek about $255,000, said lawyer F. Malcolm Cunningham Jr.


A jury Thursday cleared Venus Williams of all allegations but said Serena Williams let her father act as an agent for her. Neither sister must pay damages.
Poor Smarmy she was so vested in this and lost again. :lol: When will she ever get over this debacle that she thought was going to be a slam dunck.:lol:

It's so entertaining to watch Smarmy bring this up especially when this has no relevance to most discussions.:help: It is really fun to be a Williams fan and be entertained by haters like Smarmy when they writhe in misery.:D

kiwifan
Apr 27th, 2007, 07:58 PM
Williams Sisters' Father Liable in Suit

By BRIAN SKOLOFF
The Associated Press
Thursday, December 21, 2006; 4:44 PM

WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. -- The father of tennis stars Venus and Serena Williams is liable but doesn't have to pay damages in a lawsuit that claimed he reneged on a deal for his daughters to play in an exhibition match.

A jury Thursday cleared Venus Williams of all allegations but said Serena Williams let her father act as an agent for her. Neither sister must pay damages.


An agent can't bind you to an agreement without being granted additional authority (limited power of attorney for example).

All Richard being found an agent means is that if you say something about business issues to Richard there's a reasonable expectation (can't assume since an agent doesn't tell the client about every stupid offer ;) ) that Richard would tell Venus or Serena.

Agents serve as screens as well as conduits of business offers. ;)

Even detailed negociations with an Agent don't bind the Client to an agreement.

mykarma
Apr 27th, 2007, 08:43 PM
:lol: It's called greed. I mainly posted this for Swampi Marjorie's benefit, seeing as how she's always accusing Serena of perjury, when Serena wasn't even found to have breached the contract.

I still don't get how they found Richard liable when it was proven that he couldn't bind Vee and Rena to the contract. How did he breach if he couldn't perform what he promised. It wasn't that he was able to and didn't...he couldn't. The contract was void, i.e. not legally enforceable.
:lol::lol::lol:

Mother_Marjorie
Apr 28th, 2007, 12:39 AM
I mainly posted this for Swampi Marjorie's benefit
You country girls are an odd bunch. Mother Marjorie rules your world.