Is Doug Mientkiewicz Being a Selfish Jerk?

[ElvisL1ves]

@Jackknifed Juggernaut

But the Red Sox hadn’t won a World Series in 86 years. There is nothing to compare to for consistency.

Other teams, other players, similar situations, as described in the links.

[Steve_MB]

@minty green

As has already been explained, you’re wrong.

Er, no. Look up the words “explained” and “asserted”. The latter, not the former, has been done.

[Steve_MB]

@minty green

And in case you missed it, the Boston Red Sox appear to be asserting a superior claim to the ownership of the ball.

They are not asserting a claim to ownership; they are merely stating that they want it.

Heck, I want the bank to accept $1.98 as payment in full on my mortgage, but I don’t claim to have any sort of legal right to it. I thus stand in precisely the same position as the Red Sox.

[minty_green]

@Steve MB

Er, no. Look up the words “explained” and “asserted”

Yes, well you might want to explain that to . . . oh, wait. You’re the one who claims it has been “explained” that the baseball is not the fruit of Mientkiewicz’s labor. In that case, you might just want to look back at sections 13 and 387 of the Restatement (Second) of Agency and explain to me how on earth Mientkiewicz is acting as a fiduciary to the Red Sox – as is his legal obligation – by walking away with a highly valuable piece of property that he acquired in the course of performance of his duties?

You know, the bits about how he’s required “to act primarily for the benefit of [the Red Sox] in matters connected with his undertaking,” “to account for profits arising out of the employment,” and “not to compete with the [Red Sox] on his own account or for another in matters relating to the subject matter of the [employment].” And how Mientkiewicz “is subject to a duty to [the Red Sox] to act solely for the benefit of the [Red Sox] in all matters connected with his [employment].”

Or perhaps you could just reiterate for the 100th time that other people got to keep their baseballs.

[tnetennba]

@minty green

Yes, well you might want to explain that to . . . oh, wait. You’re the one who claims it has been “explained” that the baseball is not the fruit of Mientkiewicz’s labor. In that case, you might just want to look back at sections 13 and 387 of the Restatement (Second) of Agency and explain to me how on earth Mientkiewicz is acting as a fiduciary to the Red Sox – as is his legal obligation – by walking away with a highly valuable piece of property that he acquired in the course of performance of his duties?

You know, the bits about how he’s required “to act primarily for the benefit of [the Red Sox] in matters connected with his undertaking,” “to account for profits arising out of the employment,” and “not to compete with the [Red Sox] on his own account or for another in matters relating to the subject matter of the [employment].” And how Mientkiewicz “is subject to a duty to [the Red Sox] to act solely for the benefit of the [Red Sox] in all matters connected with his [employment].”

Or perhaps you could just reiterate for the 100th time that other people got to keep their baseballs.

Mientkiewicz isn’t an “agent” of the team. Nor is he a “fiduciary agent.” You should look those words up instead of assuming they make your case. You should also refrain from bracketing out parts of legal references to make your case stronger.

Let’s just wait and see what happens, Minty G. If the RedSox get the ball, I’ll be the first one to acknowledge you were right all along.

Don’t hold your breath, though.

[minty_green]

Your ignorance of the law is quite staggering, cricketus.

Restatement (Second) of Agency § 1: Agency; Principal; Agent

(1) Agency is the fiduciary relation which results from the manifestation of consent by one person to another that the other shall act on his behalf and subject to his control, and consent by the other so to act.

(2) The one for whom action is to be taken is the principal.

(3) The one who is to act is the agent.

[tnetennba]

@minty green

Your ignorance of the law is quite staggering, cricketus.

That “act on the other’s behalf” business doesn’t refer to any kind of employment. They are referring to, you know, agency. It applies to sports agents, lawyers, stuff like that. A more complete definition is:

“2 a : a consensual fiduciary relationship in which one party acts on behalf of and under the control of another in dealing with third parties; also : the power of one in such a relationship to act on behalf of another”

Mientkiewicz is a ballplayer. He’s not an agent any more than he’s a fruit picker or a salvager. I appreciate your zeal for justice and love for baseball, but please just stop with the lawyering.

So do you think my name is cricketus, or are you being funny? Not that cricketus is much of an insult, or especially funny.

[Acsenray]

“Agency” in agency law is a reference to the general meaning of agent – someone who acts on another’s behalf – not the particularized meaning of “agent” as in the modern sports and entertainment industries. Under agency law, most employees, when acting in the course of their employment, may be acting as “agents” of their employers. The question here is not whether Doug M. is an agent of the Red Sox – he certainly is at some times, such as when he’s swinging the bat or making a play while in a Red Sox uniform – but whether in taking and keeping the out-of-play ball he was acting as an agent.

[tnetennba]

http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Agency_(law)

Agency is an area of law dealing with a contractual or quasi-contractual relationship between at least two parties in which one, the principal, authorizes the other, the agent, to represent her or his legal interests and to perform legal acts that bind the principal. The agent has a fiduciary relationship with and is under a legal duty to act in the best interests of the principal. An agency can be expressly created for various purposes by contract or appointment, but it can also be implied from the conduct of the parties. Both an “attorney-in-fact” and an “attorney at law” agents. In the former the agent is given a “power of attorney” also known as a mandate in civil law jurisdictions.

http://www.uslegalforms.com/lawdigest/legal-definitions.php/US/US-AGENCY.htm

Agency law is concerned with any “principal”-“agent” relationship; a relationship in which one person has legal authority to act for another. The relationships generally associated with agency law include guardian-ward, executor or administrator-decedent, and employer-employee. Agency is an agreement, express , or implied, by which one of the parties, called the principal, entrusts to the other, called the agent, the management of some business; to be transacted in his name, or on his account, and by which the agent assumes to do the business and to render an account of it. As a general rule, whatever a man may do by himself, except by virtue of a delegated authority, he may do by an agent.

Nuff said.

[minty_green]

[Richard M. Nixon]

“What?”

[/Nixon]

[minty_green]

@acsenray

The question here is not whether Doug M. is an agent of the Red Sox – he certainly is at some times, such as when he’s swinging the bat or making a play while in a Red Sox uniform – but whether in taking and keeping the out-of-play ball he was acting as an agent.

As noted above, the agent is required “to act primarily for the benefit of the principal in matters connected with his undertaking.” There is no conceivable way in which catching that ball was not “connected with” his job as a professional baseball player.

[Acsenray]

Have you ever known someone who as worked as a telemarker or a shop clerk? Such people are bound “to represent [the employer’s] legal interests.” They are also empowered to “perform legal acts that bind the principal.” They also have “a fiduciary relationship with and is under a legal duty to act in the best interests of” the employer. Such a relationship can be create by contract, appointment, or by implication (“Here, you run the register; I’m going to lunch.”).

Agency law is concerned with any “principal”-“agent” relationship; a relationship in which one person has legal authority to act for another. The relationships generally associated with agency law include guardian-ward, executor or administrator-decedent, and employer-employee. Agency is an agreement, express , or implied, by which one of the parties, called the principal, entrusts to the other, called the agent, the management of some business; to be transacted in his name, or on his account, and by which the agent assumes to do the business and to render an account of it. As a general rule, whatever a man may do by himself, except by virtue of a delegated authority, he may do by an agent.

This applies to any employee.

One of the frequent applications of agency law is to decide if an employer is liable when an agent (say a delivery truck driver) gets into an accident.

[Acsenray]

@minty green

There is no conceivable way in which catching that ball was not “connected with” his job as a professional baseball player.

And, as has been noted previously, the issue is not whether he was acting as an agent when he handled the ball during play, as was his job. The question is whether he was acting as an agent when, after the play was complete, he acted to keep the ball for himself. These are two distinct acts. And as I said before you have an argument that he was acting as an agent, but I have an argument that he wasn’t.

This is getting to brick wallish. I’m bowing out before my head starts hurting.

[minty_green]

Sure, I took the money from the customer. But it’s mine now because I only decided to keep it after my shift was finished.

[RickJay]

@minty green

Possession =! ownership. And in case you missed it, the Boston Red Sox appear to be asserting a superior claim to the ownership of the ball.

I guess I did miss it, because I have seen or heard nothing about the Red Sox asserting ownership of the ball. They have said they WANT the ball. They have made no legal claim to it. Do you have a cite to the contrary or are you blowing smoke?

At this point, Mientkiewicz owns the ball. Deal with it.

[minty_green]

@RickJay

They have said they WANT the ball. They have made no legal claim to it.

True. Until the Red Sox actually sue the guy (or likely, given the labor agreement, demand arbitration) there is no “legal” challenge to his claim of ownership. Whether the Red Sox choose to enforce their legal rights is entirely a matter of their perogative. In fact, were I the attorney for the Red Sox right now, I
would advise them to work out an amicable settlement with their employee. Failing that, I’m pretty certain they could win their case on summary judgment without too much trouble.

At this point, Mientkiewicz owns the ball. Deal with it.

“At this point,” I own my house. My mortgage company may have something to say about that, but I guess we won’t really know until I start writing my mortgage payment checks to order or myself.

[tnetennba]

@acsenray

Have you ever known someone who as worked as a telemarker or a shop clerk? Such people are bound “to represent [the employer’s] legal interests.” They are also empowered to “perform legal acts that bind the principal.” They also have “a fiduciary relationship with and is under a legal duty to act in the best interests of” the employer. Such a relationship can be create by contract, appointment, or by implication (“Here, you run the register; I’m going to lunch.”).

This applies to any employee.

One of the frequent applications of agency law is to decide if an employer is liable when an agent (say a delivery truck driver) gets into an accident.

Welcome to Logic 101. Just because some Wonks are Weezles doesn’t mean all Weezles are Wonks.

Mientk. in no way, shape, or form is a fiduciary or legal representative of the Sox. You can attest that “agency” applies to all employees, but I am not convinced that this is the case.

[ElvisL1ves]

Precedents, we got precedents …

Link.

Cardinals manager Tony La Russa … announced to the sellout crowd that he will be auctioning off all four of his lineup cards from the World Series and that all proceeds will go to charity. The charity of choice is the Tony La Russa Animal Rescue Foundation, which the manager founded along with his wife Elaine in 1991.

“We’ve auctioned off lineup cards ever since 1988,” said La Russa. “What we usually do during the season, if we win, the stars will sign the card. If we lose, I sign it. I got to thinking, we just lost four World Series games, it’s probably more valuable to someone that’s a Boston Red Sox fanatic than it is to us.”

Without a doubt. Consider that the Red Sox lineup card from the Game 4 clincher alone was auctioned off for $165,000.

There are additional perks to the package La Russa is auctioning off, including a trip to St. Louis in June when the Red Sox play the Cardinals, as well as dinner with La Russa.

[minty_green]

precedent

practice

Note that they are not synonyms.

[Jackknifed_Juggernaut]

It looks like logic prevails…it’s now a “legal consensus” that Miekiewicz is SOL…

http://cbs.sportsline.com/mlb/story/8120922?worldseriesball

-jj