Los Angeles Rams Football Club V. Cannon
185 F. Supp. 717 (S.D. Cal. 1960)
Plaintiff prays for an injunction to restrain defendant playing football or engaging in related activities for anyone other than the plaintiff without the plaintiff’s consent during the term of a contract or contracts allegedly entered into by the parties on November 30, 1959, and an order declaring the existence of a valid written contract or contracts. Defendant denies he ever entered into a contract or contracts as alleged and further claims, as defenses to plaintiff’s claims, fourteen affirmative defenses.
Cannon never formally accepted the contract offered, therefore it is only an offer. The Commissioner never signed the contract so this makes not …show more content…
The judgments are severally reversed and the case is remanded for a new trial in accordance with this opinion.
National Football League Players Ass’n v. National Football League Management Council
233 Cal. Rptr. 147 (Cal. Ct. App. 1986
The Raiders and Management council content that the arbitrator exceeded his powers in that he made an error in law by failing to apply the doctrine of mitigation of damages. They further content that the award violates public policy and that the award was incorrectly calculated. We affirm the judgment.
Pastorini’s dispute with the Raiders clearly falls within the ambit of section 301(a) of the labor Management Relations Act, which pertains to “suits for violation of contracts between an employer and a labor organization representing employees in an industry affecting commerce….” Therefore, we must apply federal substantive law….However; we may also rely on the state law if it is compatible with the purposes of