Ohalete and Portis to go to court over number

[Russ Smith]

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2077374

Basically Ohalete is refusing to drop his suit claiming Portis owes him 20K for giving up #26, and Portis says he refuses to pay since Ohalete was cut and he would have gotten the number anyways.

The deal called for 10K after game 8 and another at the end of the year and Portis claims since Ohalete was cut, those 2 parts are null and void. Based on that I'd tend to think I side with Portis.

Pretty interesting article, Jeff Feagles got a free family vacation from Eli Manning to give up #10, and then got a free kitchen from Plaxico Burress from giving up #17.

 

[CardinalLaw]

Ohalete will win in court. They had an agreement, I believe it was a written agreement. As long is there is no cut-clause in it, he will win.

 

[ActingWild]

I still agree with Ohalete. The agreement was for Portis to pay Ohalete $40,000 for the number. Ohalete basically gave Portis a break by allowing him to pay in installments instead of the entire amount up front. That shouldn't be used against him.

 

[Stallion]

Sounds like Feagles is a uniform number squatter. I like his business sense.

 

[Scott MS]

Portis ain't very smart, IMO.

 

[Russ Smith]

I still agree with Ohalete. The agreement was for Portis to pay Ohalete $40,000 for the number. Ohalete basically gave Portis a break by allowing him to pay in installments instead of the entire amount up front. That shouldn't be used against him.

I'm no lawyer but I would think Ohalete is going lose because a judge (I guess it's a judge in a civil case?) will say if you weren't with the team on those dates, you have no claim to the number.

My assumption is Portis realized Ohalete was going to be cut and that's precisely why he did it in installments. Of course I may be giving him too credit for thinking of that he may have simply spent his entire signing bonus and been unable to come up with more than 20K!

I don't fault Ohalete for complaining up front but to me after he was cut the whole thing goes away because you have no claim to a number when you're not on the team?

 

[Crazy Canuck]

I'm no lawyer but I would think Ohalete is going lose because a judge (I guess it's a judge in a civil case?) will say if you weren't with the team on those dates, you have no claim to the number.
My assumption is Portis realized Ohalete was going to be cut and that's precisely why he did it in installments. Of course I may be giving him too credit for thinking of that he may have simply spent his entire signing bonus and been unable to come up with more than 20K!

I don't fault Ohalete for complaining up front but to me after he was cut the whole thing goes away because you have no claim to a number when you're not on the team?

Unless his possible departure from the SKINS was included as a specific clause affecting the final cost of the transaction, it's irrelevant to the agreement.

P.S. I am a non-practising law grad.

 

[Totally_Red]

With his huge contract why wouldn't Portis simply pay up?

He's got to be paying in four figures just for legal representation. Bizarre.

 

[Scott MS]

I am not a lawyer but I've deal with lots of contracts in my personal life. If an agreement is signed, assuming that there was no "cut" clause which would seem silly, then Ohalete should easily win this case.

A signed agreement is a signed agreement, especially when Portis received consideration in the form of the jersey number.

Here's some information from the article.

Protracted negotiations led to a contract signed by Portis, Ohalete and witness Brad Berlin, the Redskins equipment manager.

"The document is being drawn on June 4, 2004, to verify the agreement between Clinton Portis and Ifeanyi Ohalete for the sale of Ifeanyi's jersey number in exchange for monetary compensation," the contract said.

It called for Portis to pay Ohalete $40,000 in three installments: $20,000 immediately, $10,000 by Week 8 of the NFL season, and $10,000 by Christmas Day. Portis paid the $20,000 up front and got his coveted No. 26. Ohalete switched to No. 30.

 

[Russ Smith]

Unless his possible departure from the SKINS was included as a specific clause affecting the final cost of the transaction, it's irrelevant to the agreement.

P.S. I am a non-practising law grad.

Interesting. Just seemed obvious to me that a guy no longer on the team would have no claim to a number but I guess you're right in the sense that the contract was between 2 people, not involving the Washington Offensive Names so it probably is irrelevant that Ohalete was cut before the next installment was due.

 

[JPlay]

Is Ohalete that hard up for cash. If you're cut then you no longer have a right to a number on a team you're not even on. The agreement would have been fine if Ohalete made it, but what would Portis be paying him for if he wasn't.

 

[Scott MS]

Is Ohalete that hard up for cash. If you're cut then you no longer have a right to a number on a team you're not even on. The agreement would have been fine if Ohalete made it, but what would Portis be paying him for if he wasn't.

Perhaps Ohalete losing his number 26 also caused him to lose his confidence and that's why he didn't make the team.

My point is that it's irrelevant if he got cut. If you buy a car and it's totalled 2 days later can you say "I don't have a car anymore so why should I pay"? That may work for a few weeks until the creditors take everything you have.

 

[JPlay]

Perhaps Ohalete losing his number 26 also caused him to lose his confidence and that's why he didn't make the team.

My point is that it's irrelevant if he got cut. If you buy a car and it's totalled 2 days later can you say "I don't have a car anymore so why should I pay"? That may work for a few weeks until the creditors take everything you have.

If I agree to buy a car from a car salesman, then the dealer is fired from the company and no longer has a right to sell that car, should I still pay that car salesman. NOoooooo.

 

[ActingWild]

If I agree to buy a car from a car salesman, then the dealer is fired from the company and no longer has a right to sell that car, should I still pay that car salesman. NOoooooo.

Silly to be arguing this...but why not? I'm bored

Put it this way...you've already bought the car from the salesman and instead of paying cash, you've financed it. Now that the car salesman doesn't work there, does that mean you don't have to make your payments?

Whether it was for the right to wear #26 for 1 day of practice or for 10 years, Portis signed a contract to pay Ohalete $40,000 to have the rights to that jersey number.

 

[Capital Card]

Is Ohalete that hard up for cash. If you're cut then you no longer have a right to a number on a team you're not even on. The agreement would have been fine if Ohalete made it, but what would Portis be paying him for if he wasn't.

If I agree to buy a car from a car salesman, then the dealer is fired from the company and no longer has a right to sell that car, should I still pay that car salesman. NOoooooo.

Did you just take both sides of the same argument within the span of only a few minutes???



Here is my take:

The two parties entered an agreement where Ohalate was to give up his number in exchange for $40,000 paid in three installments.

Ohalate completed his end of the agreement by giving up the number for Clinton Portis' use; however, Portis did not fulfill his agreement, in that he only paid one of the three installments. Without a specific "cut" clause, I don't see how Portis has a case.

Portis is going to end up paying the full $40K plus legal fees. He's getting some bad advice....from the guy who will be collecting the legal fees no doubt. My guess is they were hoping Ohalte would drop his demands or settle for a smaller fee. Like Pete Rose, he gambled and lost.

Go Cards!!! (I love to see the Redskins look like chumps.)

 

[Russ Smith]

Silly to be arguing this...but why not? I'm bored

Put it this way...you've already bought the car from the salesman and instead of paying cash, you've financed it. Now that the car salesman doesn't work there, does that mean you don't have to make your payments?

Whether it was for the right to wear #26 for 1 day of practice or for 10 years, Portis signed a contract to pay Ohalete $40,000 to have the rights to that jersey number.

FWIW the first car I ever bought was used, the stereo was bad. I bought it from a dealer it hadn't cleared their X point inspection yet. I was told if I bought it that day, I could bring it in next week and they'd replace the stereo and thoroughly clean the car and steam clean the engine. Like a moron(I was 19) I got none of that in writing but I did talk to the mechanic that was going to install the stereo, the salesman brought him in. So next week I go in, ask for my salesman, "he no longer works here". To make a long story short Stan Antonio VW totally reneged on the deal even after the mechanic verified that he had indeed talked to me about the stereo. What I didn't know is the salesman told him I'd be paying extra for it so he was just confirming he could install it, not that it would be free. They refused to honor his claims, and I know for a fact I was not the only one he did that to on his way out the door.

Then we have the case of Ross Verba and Cleveland, he says they promised him a new deal if he signed a cap friendly deal to help them out. Then Butch Davis gets fired and now Cleveland is refusing to honor that because the guy who made the promise, is not a Brown anymore.

I guess the key here is Ohalete and Portis made a deal, is that deal as "employees" of Washington, or as 2 people? If it's as employees, Ohalete's claim ends when cut, if it's as 2 people, it doesn't. Sounds like most of the lawyers here think Ohalete will win.

 

[RedStorm]

I'm no lawyer but I would think Ohalete is going lose because a judge (I guess it's a judge in a civil case?) will say if you weren't with the team on those dates, you have no claim to the number.

My assumption is Portis realized Ohalete was going to be cut and that's precisely why he did it in installments. Of course I may be giving him too credit for thinking of that he may have simply spent his entire signing bonus and been unable to come up with more than 20K!

I don't fault Ohalete for complaining up front but to me after he was cut the whole thing goes away because you have no claim to a number when you're not on the team?

But, he had a claim to the number when the deal was struck. Also, unless there is something specific about being on the team when the installments are due then Portis loses IMO. Then, I studied computer science not law.

 

[Russ Smith]

But, he had a claim to the number when the deal was struck. Also, unless there is something specific about being on the team when the installments are due then Portis loses IMO. Then, I studied computer science not law.

Yes the folks who are lawyers seem to agree with you so I now expect Portis to lose.

 

[Scott MS]

Really it all boils down to what is in writing in and that the agreement was not only signed by both parties, but witnessed by the equipment manager.

The fact that Ohalete was cut is really irrelevant, unless it was stipulated in the contract.

Anyways, both these guys don't need $20k. Come on. It's sad that it makes the front of the sports page, though.

 

[Redheart]

This question is a JOKE!

And because of that we need a Clown-Lawyer to answer it.

Ouchie...I believe that is your que...

 

[Russ Smith]

Kind of interesting, I did a search on Ohalete and Portis and as searches go I came across a blurb from 2004 when they resigned Ohalete. It said Ohalete is probably best known as the guy who refused to give up his number to Champ Bailey. No idea why Bailey wanted to change numbers.

Also of note, Chad Morton asked Ohalete for the number in 2004 also, and was refused.

When Portis was acquired, they announced him at a press conference holding up #26, one problem, nobody asked Ohalete. So I guess this is a matter of respect for Ohalete so I kind of hope he wins the money now. When Portis first asked him about the number he was refused. In addition to the 20K there's at least one report (from TMQ) that says Portis bought Ohalete a new car as part of the deal. And I did find a quote from everyone's favorite agent Drew Rosenhaus where he said Clinton Portis had been "more than generous" with Ohalete and they had a different view of the terms of the deal than Ohalete did.

I hope Ohalete wins, anything to piss off Rosenhaus.

 

[ajcardfan]

After reading this thread, Portis' lawyers agreed to a settlement. He's paying Ohalete 18k of the 20k owed.

Portis settles up

 

[JPlay]

Did you just take both sides of the same argument within the span of only a few minutes???



Here is my take:

The two parties entered an agreement where Ohalate was to give up his number in exchange for $40,000 paid in three installments.

Ohalate completed his end of the agreement by giving up the number for Clinton Portis' use; however, Portis did not fulfill his agreement, in that he only paid one of the three installments. Without a specific "cut" clause, I don't see how Portis has a case.

Portis is going to end up paying the full $40K plus legal fees. He's getting some bad advice....from the guy who will be collecting the legal fees no doubt. My guess is they were hoping Ohalte would drop his demands or settle for a smaller fee. Like Pete Rose, he gambled and lost.

Go Cards!!! (I love to see the Redskins look like chumps.)

Uh, no. Maybe you should re-read them. They say the exact same thing.

If you only own the rights to something because you are a member of a specific organization, then you can't charge someone for that something if you're no longer a member. That in itself makes the contract meaningless.

 

[Russ Smith]

After reading this thread, Portis' lawyers agreed to a settlement. He's paying Ohalete 18k of the 20k owed.

Portis settles up

Good, after researching it I'm glad that Ohalete "won".

 

[40yearfan]

Uh, no. Maybe you should re-read them. They say the exact same thing.

If you only own the rights to something because you are a member of a specific organization, then you can't charge someone for that something if you're no longer a member. That in itself makes the contract meaningless.

I'm going to have to disagree with you JPlay. The contract in effect at the time the contract was signed is the contract they will deal with. Unless that contract had specific language stated that events happening after the contract was signed would take precedence, the future events have no bearing on the legality or terms of the contract.