Re: Isn\'t this a redundant statement?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Harrah's breached an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.
[/ QUOTE ]
Don't they have a reputation for this in the poker world?
[/ QUOTE ]
If the contract expressly permits them to do this, there is no such thing as an implied covenant to the contrary. If there isn't or it's ambiguous, more interesting question.
That's exactly what David said in the op, but I cringe when I see legal jargon used without explanation.
[/ QUOTE ]
Sorry for making you or anyone else cringe. My post included a brief explanation. As I said, I believe the documents were silent. In a contractual dispute, courts often supply a term to contracts (that isn't actually written in the words on the pages of the contract) requiring the parties to act in "good faith." That's what I meant by the covenant of good faith and fair dealing.
Without getting into a discussion of whether there was or was not a contract between Harrah's and the players, I think it's safe to say that the argument being made by some is essentially that Harrah's did not act in good faith.
I noticed that someone referenced the WSOP tournament rules, which state that Harrah’s reserves the right to cancel, change or modify the WSOP at any time, for any reason. I don't think that gets you any closer to an answer to David's question because WSOP is defined as "all forty-five (45) events from June 2, 2005 through July 15, 2005, and its related satellites."
|