Wow, I thought this was purely kayfabe!

[dstebbins]

For those of you who, like me, thought that court decisions being settled with wrestling matches (such as Robert Roode v. Eric Young or Rey Mysterio v. Eddie Guerrerro for custody of Dominic) was only legitimate in wrestling kayfabe, you couldn't be more wrong!

I was sitting in Business Law class the other day (I'm a business major in college), and my professor brought up an "arbitration" between Southwest Airlines and some other plane company. There was a dispute over an ad slogan in 1992, and the CEOs said "Hey, going to court is going to cost us some major bucks, and even if we win, all we get is a picture, so let's settle this dispute with some good ol'e fashioned arm wrasslin'! Winner gets the slogan for his company!"

Oh, and I'm not making this up. I even have PROOF!!!!!!!!!!

This isn't just wrestling angles that we watch; they could happen in real life!!!!!!!

 

[Travis40]

And the real point of this thread is? I really don't get this...I have no clue :g:

 

[Trips V.2]

This post makes my brain hurt.

 

[Dairydude]

"you raped me"

"so sue me"

"better than that, I challenge you to HELL IN A CELL"

"...oh shit"



could work!

 

[Travis40]

^:roflmao:...I just got raped, I think I need to challenge you to a Texas Dickrope Match

 

[Angryphilip2]

REALLY????

yeah, i really don't know what to say, i mean is this a good thing? not really, matter a fact i think that in the grand scheme of things this really doesn't matter....

 

[the last gunslinger]

they have to legally agree to it don't they???

 

[dstebbins]

And the real point of this thread is? I really don't get this...I have no clue :g:

The purpose of this thread is infotainment, nothing more, nothing less.

And yes, both parties must agree for this to be just as legally binding as a trial or arbitration.

 

[Travis40]

^okay....that's really, really odd.....okay *reminds himself this thread is kind of meaningless*

 

[dstebbins]

What? Don't tell me you don't know what infotainment means.:huh:

 

[wwe_fanatic]

What? Don't tell me you don't know what infotainment means.:huh:

*puts hand up* I don't!

Interesting thread. They have to agree legally first though.

 

[†horza13â€]

Well in pro-wrestling theres something called a booker ok? So for example the match between Eddie G. and Rey. It wouldn't mean anything to wrestle for Dominick because someone tells them who wins. They don't just go out there and beat the crap out of eachother. Plus i don't think Vince would allow it . . .

 

[dstebbins]

*puts hand up* I don't!

Interesting thread. They have to agree legally first though.

As Matt Stryker would say, "If you don't know what that word means, look it up."

Well in pro-wrestling theres something called a booker ok? So for example the match between Eddie G. and Rey. It wouldn't mean anything to wrestle for Dominick because someone tells them who wins. They don't just go out there and beat the crap out of eachother. Plus i don't think Vince would allow it . . .

:Confuzzled: You're completely missing the point.

 

[Beast Of Wrestling]

What? no: No threads that hurts members brains!

 

[excellence of execution]

i know about arbitration and going to a tribunal,but settling dispute by an arm wrestling match and it being legally binding.I think if you have an arm wrestling match to decide,it's a way of settling a dispute WITHOUT going to a court of law,so how can it be legally binding.I think the case you studied in business law is a real exception that's why your teacher put emphasis on it.