Procedural Posture
Appellant professional baseball team challenged, from the Superior Court of Alameda County (California), affirmance of an arbitration award in favor of respondent baseball player, arguing that policy prevented it from complying with the terms of respondent's contract requiring appellant to pay half of respondent's salary as deferred compensation in the form of a life insurance policy.
Overview
Appellant professional baseball team sought review of an award of an arbitration panel in favor of respondent player, which award required appellant to proceed as agreed under a contract between the parties to pay half of respondent's salary as deferred compensation in the form of a life insurance policy, contending that appellant's alleged breach of contract consisted only in its refusal to perform acts which it asserted would have violated public policy by encouraging tax evasion. The term Crimes define does not, in modern criminal law, have any simple and universally accepted definition, though statutory definitions have been provided for certain purposes. On appeal, the award was affirmed. In support of its ruling, the court held that erroneous reasoning would not invalidate an otherwise proper arbitration award. The court further held that courts were reluctant to declare a contract void as against public policy, and would refuse to do so if by any reasonable construction it may be upheld. With respect to the instant case, the court rejected appellant's asserted justification for its breach as both statutory and judicial policy favored the finality of arbitration awards.
Outcome
The arbitration award was affirmed as the court noted that both statutory and judicial policy supported maintaining the finality of arbitration awards.