65 Million Lawsuit !

Duty of Performance !

WICB could NOT perform due to the players walk out !

Slam dunk : BCCI on their own 

There you go. Maybe there is such a thing as Karma. Take it WICB!

Andy Bull of The Guardian provides his take on the potential $65 million lawsuit.

Surely international law states that organisations are not responsible for natural disasters, strikes, acts of piracy etc. It looks as if BCCI are blaming the WICB for the Tour cancellation because this is the only way they can get compensation. If the players on strike are responsible for the cancellation by virtue of withdrawing their labour then surely the Indian Board are not entitled to compensation?

The Board could have stepped in and tell the players :

we will pay the 35 ooo Sponsorhip $ : and let the Tour proceed as planned !

They did NOT : hence the India board lawsuit !

Their claim for damages would be severely diminished as a result of the Sri Lanka series arranged by the BCCI.  In other words, the BCCI mitigated its damages by inviting Sri Lanka to fill in for the Wondies.

So damages are basically out of the picture.  The BCCI will now most likely seek a declaration from the court that the WICB committed an anticipatory breach of contract and use that decision to pull out of all the existing bi-lateral tours as well as other arrangements with the WICB.  The WICB will probably argue that performance was impossible once the players took the position they took and they offered a replacement team which was rejected.

Yes I understand the Duty of Performance.

BCCI will argue that the crux was 35 K in sponsorshp revenue !

Heck BCCI may even claim they would have donated that pittance for the TOUR to proceed !

The BCCI doesn't care about that $35K issue.  That's a matter between the WICB and its players/union.


The BCCI's legal position is that the WICB knew of this dispute (players/WIPA/WICB) before the tour and more importantly knew that this dispute could lead to the players withdrawing from the tour if unresolved.  Hence, the anticipatory breach of contract by the WICB which lead to partial performance of the contract.

I have to say that both the WICB and WIPA have the crappy legal advisers.  Either that or they don't listen to those legal advisers.  All of this could have been avoided before a ball was even bowled. 

You do know the Players went on TOUR , without a contract  !

that is even more damning !

So even If classified as a wildcat strike :there was no contract with the Board !

They had a MOU.  Whether we like it or not that MOU is still a legally binding agreement absent a court order declaring it otherwise.