That's true, but Nellie is suing for the full contract value, and that can only be a valid remedy if he in fact didn't breach its terms either. Put another way, Nellie is claiming (I think) that the contract was valid and continues to be valid and therefore, he deserves all the money under the contract, regardless of whether the Mavs actually "use" his services. That would be true had he not also breached the contract. Yet he is also trying to claim (probably) that the non-compete clause doesn't apply because Cuban breached the contract. However, for that to be true, the contract would have to terminate upon Cuban's original breach, meaning that he can only recover the fair market value of his services up to that point. Or at least that's my understanding of contract law, which isn't one of my strong suits.