UFC 79 wasn't only an event that provided some great matchups, but it also provided some interesting news about the Heavyweight picture. During the broadcast, it was learned that Tim Sylvia will take on Antonio "Minotauro" Nogueira for the "interim" Heavyweight title belt. Many fans that follow the sport felt that this was inevitable. Randy Couture has all but stated he only wants to fight Fedor Emelianenko, and the UFC has assured us that they are not interested in co-promoting with M-1 Global to make the fight happen. There is one question that plagues the mind as far as this situation goes. Why would the UFC create an interim title fight instead of just stripping Randy Couture of his belt completely?

The Contract Clause

The main point that is floating around is that Couture's contract most likely has a champion's clause that either extended his contract for a longer term or creates a breach of contract if he doesn't fulfull his contract as the champion. It's already perceived that declining to fight Nogueira could very well have been a breach of contract, but as Adam Swift has wrote about in the past, the clauses in the contracts sometimes extend contracts indefinitely in some of the cases in which a fighter declines a fight:

The term of the contract may also be extended indefinitely for any period when a fighter is "unable, unwilling or refuses to compete or train for a Bout for any reason whatsoever."

This clause may explain White's statement at Tuesday's news conference that he intended to offer Couture a fight against Antonio Rodrigo Nogueira later this week. If, as expected, Couture refuses the bout, Zuffa would have another ground on which to extend its agreement with Couture.

However, per another clause in the contract, Zuffa retains the right to count a fight offered and refused as fulfilling a bout under the contract. This is another example of the tremendous power the company wields in determining the effective term of its contracts. This clause could seemingly also be at issue in the Couture dispute.

This may the the exact clause that is causing Couture's contract to be extended, but then why maintain that Couture is still champion? Most likely, the champion's clause has more goodies that will hurt Couture's chances legally. What can Randy Couture actually do in court against such a contract? A question for contract law research.

Contract Law and concepts of escaping contracts

There are a few different ways that a fighter or anybody for that matter can prove in court that a contract is deemed unenforceable under law. This means that the contract cannot be enforced by the law because it has been deemed unfair in some way. Here's some of the typical reasons that have been used in the past successfully:

1. Capacity to Contract: The idea that the individual who signed the contract was unable to understand what he/she was signing due to mental impairment or age. This can refer to someone signing a contract while completely intoxicated or influenced by drugs. Obviously, this is not a factor in this case.
   


2. Undue Influence, Duress, Misrepresentation: This involves coercion, threats, false statements, and persuasion from outside parties on the party signing into the contract. All of these can void a contract if proven. These three terms are the basic legal terms that go along with this type of defense.
   
   
   
   1. Duress: Party must show that the agreement was brought on because of a threat from a party that is deemed unlawful. It can also deal with a person not having any "reasonable" alternative, but to sign the contract. Blackmail.
      
   
   
   2. Undue Influence: Improper persuasion that causes someone to enter into an agreement. This usually involves a play on power. A underling is forced to sign into a contract from a higher power. Parent/Child relationship, etc.
      
   
   
   3. Misrepresentation: This deals with a false statement of fact, deliberate withholding of information, or an action that conceals a fact.
      


3. Unconscionability: This concept most likely will be the focus of a legal battle if one occurs. Unconscionability deals with everything else that can happen with the unfairness of a contract. The key concept is that the terms of the contract must be "shocking to the conscience of the court" We will look at this later.
   


4. Public Policy and Illegality: Signing a contract to do something immoral or illegal.
   


5. Mistakes: Contract can be deemed unenforceable if there is found to be a mistake in the terms of the contract. This, of course, is a mutually agreed upon action by both parties.
   

Those are some of the terms that are used when moving into the arena of Contract Law and the concept of Enforceability. We aren't lawyers, but these terms do deal with the ideas and concepts that have to do with causing a contract to be unenforceable.

What could Couture's move be?

Let's take a step on the side of speculation and hypothetical theory for a second. We won't know for months what will be happening with the current situation between Zuffa and Couture, but if the situation moves to a legal environment, here's what could happen. If Couture ultimately determines that he was the subject of an unfair contract, a defense would most likely run along the lines of misrepresentation or unconscionability.

More than likely, the Unconscionability defense will be his best chance at defeating the contract's terms. If Couture and his lawyers can somehow convince a court that the clauses within the Zuffa contracts are "shocking to the conscience of the court", the court can deem the contract void. What could potentially be pieces of the contract that bring this type of "shock" to the court?

We don't know the exact clauses, but we can speculate as to some of them. As Adam Swift's article hinted toward, certain clauses actually extend the contract indefinitely. The problem is that when Couture signed this contract, it would be evident from his signature that he was agreeing to these terms. The entire process of deeming the contract void, however, is to determine whether that clause is unfair. To an extent, it could be said that extending the contract indefinitely could be deemed unfair due to the length of the extension.

Of course, that argument has its faults. Since Couture declined the Nogueira fight offer, is he already in breach of contract? It's possible that he breached contract, or caused a clause to be put into action. It is also possible that Zuffa simply kept Couture as the champion to also maintain the terms in the champion's clause as well. Would a court deem this as a "shock"?

What do you think?

Would a clause that extends a contract indefinitely due to a refusal to fight be deemed as a "shock" even if the fighter signed the contract? It does seem excessive to maintain on contract for what could be the rest of someone's career because of a refusal to fight.

Would a champion's clause that extends the number of fights or time of the contract be deemed unfair? It could be, but this falls into that area in which the fighter did know that if he obtained champion status, his contract would be extended.

Give us your thoughts.