twitter google

The price of suing the UFC

While sharing the good news with Sherdog that he’s planning to fight MORE, not less, Ken Shamrock also shares some bummer info: the UFC took him for $175,000 in that lawsuit he lost earlier this year. If you don’t remember, that’s the one where he sued to get the last fight on his contract but found out provisions in his favor were written in crayon compared to the UFC’s ironclad shit. Part of that ironclad shit? A provision that says “You sue us and lose and you pay for our lawyers. Our super expensive cut throat lawyers.”

9 COMMENTS
  • CRM_Stephen says:

    Its like a real-life Rocky story.

  • P W says:

    “A provision that says “You sue us and lose and you pay for our lawyers. Our super expensive cut throat lawyers.””

    Ehhh… Isn’t that how it ALWAYS works? Loser pays for the winner’s legal fees?

  • repenttokyo says:

    no, not always.

  • Sodomize Intolerance says:

    Please, never post Shamrock’s disgusting varicose veins. Ever. I beg you.

  • SHORT_BUS says:

    He has nobody to blame but himself and his shitty attorney.

  • Alignyourmind says:

    It looks like something has burrowed a home into his armpit. Gross.

  • Jim says:

    I’m not a lawyer & have no clue on American law, but a provision that says “You sue us and lose and you pay for our lawyers.” sounds whack to me.
    Don’t you have a right to sue in America & isn’t it the judge decide whether or not to award expenses based on the merit of the litigation? You can’t sign away your rights no matter how dumb or crazy you are.

  • P W says:

    “”You sue us and lose and you pay for our lawyers.” sounds whack to me.”

    It makes perfect sense to me, and happens to be how all cases work in my little corner of the world. If I get screwed by someone I shouldn’t have to pay a lawyer to get back what’s rightfully mine (heck, the fees might be higher than the value of the object we’re both trying to claim). It also prevents a rich party from suing someone for some no good reason over and over until they simply can’t afford to mount a legal defense.

  • Jim says:

    ^ what I meant was you can’t force someone to pay your court expenses, just by putting a provision in a contract & getting them to sign it.
    The judge decides (In Ireland anyway) who pays what, in regard to court expenses.
    You go suing someone for no good reason, and you can expect to pay their expenses. On the other-hand if someone has you sign a misleading or confusing contract, you can dispute their interpretation of it in court without having to worry about getting dumped with their expenses.

Archives