QUOTE IMJohnCox
It just doesn’t work. It’s basic contract law. If one party’s in breach the other can demand it be put right before he goes on.
/QUOTE

This is not exactly correct under American contract law.

In the USA, the non-breaching party's performance is excused only if the breach is "material".  A non-material breach does not excuse performance.  I do not think that alteration of bathroom access (prompted by "protest against behaviour") constitutes a material breach.  To hold otherwise would be to maintain that access to a private, unmonitored bathroom is a "material term" of the contract.  USA case law has a fairly limited view of "materiality".

If locking Kramnik's bathroom was a breach, it was not (I believe) a material breach and therefore did not excuse Kramnik's performance.  Kramnik's remedy for non-material breach is a civil one for money damages.

On the other hand, if Kramnik does not perform (a material breach), then FIDE (who is, at-worst, in non-material breach) can sue Kramnik for losses incurred from Kramnik's failure to perform!  FIDE could have treated Kramnik's letter (an absolute refusal to play) as an "anticipatory repudiation" and then sued Kramnik on that basis.  Not a wise decision, but a legally available one under American contract law.

So the issue would be whether Kramnik's private bathroom access is "material" to the contract.  I think clearly it is not-- it is a peripheral matter unrelated to the chess-for-money essence of the contract.

I must admit I am rather ignorant of English law or international law.  Those jurisdictions may yield an altogether different analysis/result.

See also:

http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=3396

(includes the Wall Street Journal editorial followed by an interview with Kasparov)

IMJohnCox wrote on 10/03/06 at 16:19:55:


I trust you. In fact, I have obtained many legal opinions to show to the authorities. In legal world and professional accountants world two plus two is not necessarily four. It's what you want to be!

But. the fact remains. My professional judgement is this. Kramnik will win the case hands down under Contract Law in India which closely follows Contract Law of England.

Well if they are paying this guy for legal advice and that his job, I suppose they have to accept what he says! He says "our Swiss lawyer Jean-Mark Rejmondom has the same opinion", so on face value it would seem there was no choice but to let the forfeited point stand.
I know we have people on the other thread who think Kramnik could have a case, but it would seem more and more unlikely, especially considering the blunder his agent made in not submitting a protest until AFTER the game 5 had been forfeited. How this could have happened I find amazing - after the match Kramnik will have to seriously talk to this guy I would imagine 
Anyway, for now we have to try and get back to the chess, I hope it doesnt turn out that game 5 is crucial to the final score, but looks like Kramnik will have to play on the basis that he has dropped a point there.

Quote:

katar is simply wrong. The contract does allow for a private bathroom (in the sense of unshared). Whether a monitor could have been ordered is more difficult, but that wasn't what the Appeals Committee were ordering.

This line has been fashionable lately since my book was written (said he!) and clearly I was a little glib.

Willempie wrote on 10/02/06 at 11:24:55:


"8... Bg6 9. Be3 is a comfortable edge for White" on page 148. We'll see if this is true today

Hello Mr Cox, nice to see more legal opinions! Hopefully Mr Dearing can offer his legal opinion too.   
I think as a matter of construction Katar's argument does hold some merit, though i will argue this is primarily a case of ultra vires from the appeals committee (ie. it exceeded its authority). 

But one issue is whether the Appeals Committee decision is void from the beginning (i think the common law term is void ab initio?!), or can it somehow take effect for the time being that it was "valid" and affect third party rights (Topalov's)?