Quote:
Originally Posted by Runscott
Given that the typed piece is a 'boilerplate' template, and there wasn't such a pre-typed template for addendums such as the handwritten one, containing incentive agreements, it isn't extremely far-fetched that both could have been created on the same day; however, parts of the typed one are actually typed, not handwritten, so why couldn't whoever typed that one, have typed up the addendum to it?
And if Ruth and Frazee were going to go to the trouble of agreeing on the verbiage in the handwritten one, why not put something in it related to hitting? Why waste time, as Jim points out, writing something up for pitching?
Not saying it's fake - just saying that it defies logic.
|
I'm sure they could have typed up the addendum. We'll never know why they didn't.
Why couldn't they have written up the addendum later in the day at the bar or restaurant when the subject of pitching came up? Or why couldn't Frazee have done the addendum in writing because it gave him the opportunity to say it wasn't legitimate and not honor it later? Why couldn't the handwritten agreement have been done the next day, Saturday, when the office was closed, or the weekend after that, or at any time or any informal place after Jan 11 and been pre-dated to match the agreement it amended?
I've worked for corporations and with contracts for 30+ years. I've seen hundreds of agreements covering tens of millions of dollars of business that don't amount to much more than signed cocktail napkins. The company I currently work for rarely even uses lawyers to draft or approve its agreements. For all kinds of reasons things don't always get done in the most formal, appropriate or "lawyerly" way.
And I'm not following why you think drafting an addendum for pitching and not hitting defies logic? Why couldn't the original agreement presume the hitting part, and after signing it Ruth makes it clear he doesn't want to pitch, the club says "Babe, if Jones or Pennock go down with injury you'll HAVE to pitch full-time, but we'll throw you another thousand or two if that happens." What's illogical about that? It makes more sense to me that the incentives covered the thing he DIDN'T want to do.