Comments Thread For: Duva Reveals on Stevenson-Kovalev, Haymon, More

[rasdun]

and, u don't need a written contract to have a valid binding agreement in a court of law. u need offer and acceptance for consideration. Those things are here - its just a matter of whether she can prove it. I think she has the e-mails

[bojangles1987]

Now ppl are trying to **** on Kovalev's level of comp while he's actively chasing the lineal champ of the division??? Are u ppl serious???

It holds no basis whatsoever. The only advantage Stevenson has is Dawson, who was coming off a weight-drained beating, so make of what he had left what you will. Other than Dawson, Kovalev has beaten better opposition.

Anyone who says Kovalev hasn't fought good enough competition is making ridiculous excuses.

[iniduoh]

True. The thing a lot are missing in this but Duva realizes is that Stevenson is being sold out for his titles to Hopkins.

Been noticing Haymon's scheme of late. He has a marquee fighter, and then he'll sign his potential opponent some time in advance, so when he matches them up for a 'big fight' he'll keep everything in house. Everything will be in order for the marquee fighter to win but in case they lose, Haymon wins regardless (see Broner-Maidana, Garcia-Matthysse et al.)

Every promoter does that. Bob Arum is the master of it. So this type of thing is not exclusive to Haymon. And TBH, I don't really think that is what's going on in this case because Stevenson should have no problem with beating old man Hopkins. If Dawson can beat Hopkins, I would bet my money that Stevenson beats him.

[MDPopescu]

She says she has all these things and sent it out.

If you actually have them, then do it

Poor mrs. Duva! She is only a woman ... She isn't a master in the sophisticated art of negotiation and she speaks everything out... She provided the most probable big picture for the near future of the LHW division...
... But (who knows?) this womanly straightforward reverse psychology expression may trigger unexpected actions... Which actually I strongly doubt, though...

[Dafoo]

At this point, Duva has no legs to stand on simply because there has not been a breach against the agreement she claims to have. Both sides agreed to take another fight before finalizing terms for their match up. Duvas team negotiated terms with HBO independent from Stevenson camp for Agnew fight and got it. Stevensons team was well within their right to do the same and negotiate contract terms with HBO the same way for the Fonfara fight. They did that and HBO declined the offer. Call it shady business dealing on Al Haymon if you want, but the fact is they had no obligation to accept any offer given by HBO because of some "agreed" contract with Duva. Thats just not how business is done in boxing. If Duva used that as a bargaining chip in her negotiation with HBO that was her mistake. So I don't see breach of contract there.

Flash forward to the fall. Stevenson wins against Fonfara and according to the agreement it's now time to negotiate the Kovalev fight. Duva and Yvon (with Al Haymon) meet and now (to know ones surprise) they can't come to an agreement on terms for the fight. For whatever reason, they simply just can't agree. Duvas argument that Yvon had agreed to a price between A and B months prior won't matter because even if that were true, there are a million other reasons Stevenson camp can say why an agreement could not be made. I don't see that as a breach either. I'm not an attorney or anything but this just sounds like a simple case of one promoter took for granted that other options still existed without a signed contract between ALL parties, including HBO. Duva miscalculated Al Haymon descending from the clouds to scoop up Stevenson. If i'm missing something from her argument please enlighten me.

[Kagami Taiga]

I don't think she's claiming that there's an actual contract, but a firm agreement in principle, upon which she's based her subsequent actions (such as paying Agnew an over-inflated purse at Sergeis expense) - I can't say whether this is actionable or not, but it wouldn't entirely surprise me - if you lost money because you accepted someones word and you have that 'promise' in writing there may be something in it.

Say, for instance you'd agreed with someone to build an extension on their home, but actual costs had not been finalised - you have in writing that they want the work doing so you go out and buy materials, tools etc..only to have them say they've found someone else to do the work - I suspect that you'd be able to claim against them, at least for the costs you'd incurred.

Thing is Duva knows she can't make Stevenson fight Kovalev, but may just be hoping that the threat of either a tempoarary fight injunction or even a few $100K lost earnings costs might be enough to bring Stevenson back to the table.

My point is there is no legally binding agreement here. The term fir a legally binding agrement is a contract. Therefore she cannot seek relief whether legal, equitable or otherwise. She is blowing a lit of hot air but what ages saying clearly contradicts he conclusions

[Kagami Taiga]

and, u don't need a written contract to have a valid binding agreement in a court of law. u need offer and acceptance for consideration. Those things are here - its just a matter of whether she can prove it. I think she has the e-mails

It's not that simple. U need all those things for a regular contract. But u still need actual concrete terms, like a concrete monetary value. There can be no vague terms. This agreement is much too vague. Therefore there really was no meeting of the minds.

[junior gong]

Al Haymon is a cancer this sport most definitely doesnt need.

[Weebler I]

At this point, Duva has no legs to stand on simply because there has not been a breach against the agreement she claims to have. Both sides agreed to take another fight before finalizing terms for their match up.

There are arguably enough terms already finalised and there is arguably evidence of consensus ad idem (meeting of the minds). GYM's actions may constitute an anticipatory breach, in which case they have a duty to mitigate (i.e. damages). I use "arguably" because all this is open to litigation and ultimately interpretation, i.e. something for the courts to decide (unless they settle out of court). At the end of the article Duva said she may not pursue.

[DoktorSleepless]

It's not that simple. U need all those things for a regular contract. But u still need actual concrete terms, like a concrete monetary value. There can be no vague terms. This agreement is much too vague. Therefore there really was no meeting of the minds.

There's no vague term. They got a specific monetary number from HBO, and Yvon agreed.