Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 26 of 26
  1. #21

    Join Date
    November 29, 2009
    Posts
    2,310
    Quote Originally Posted by VTGolfer View Post
    Correct, which would be the basis for a legal argument they could put forth with the intent of a achieving a negotiated settled for a lower amount.

    I've said it in another thread and I'll say it hear. I seriously doubt anybody would ever pay 3x. That should be viewed as the ceiling. Anyone wanting to leave is going to be getting legal advice on steps to take to best position themselves for a lower negotiated settlement. The phrase "punitive" coming from certain quarters of FSU as well as their initial vote against the increased exit fee is legal positioning to give them a less onerous out should they want one in the near future.

    Contracts aren't laws. They aren't "binding" in the sense that you must comply with every word in the contract regardless of its implications. Contracts are agreements between parties, but those agreements themselves must not be afoul of any actual laws and are subject to interpretation. The word "punitive" in the context being used by FSU is legal speak for saying the fee isn't "fair" or "legal".
    This. And I think the same principle applies to Penn State, FOR EXAMPLE (JUST AN EXAMPLE). If they really wanted to switch conferences they could probably negotiate a settlement with the Big Ten. Same thing for Texas and Oklahoma.

  2. #22
    MEHOKIE's Avatar
    Join Date
    October 07, 1999
    Location
    In a van.
    Posts
    62,350
    Quote Originally Posted by VTGolfer View Post
    Correct, which would be the basis for a legal argument they could put forth with the intent of a achieving a negotiated settled for a lower amount.

    I've said it in another thread and I'll say it hear. I seriously doubt anybody would ever pay 3x. That should be viewed as the ceiling. Anyone wanting to leave is going to be getting legal advice on steps to take to best position themselves for a lower negotiated settlement. The phrase "punitive" coming from certain quarters of FSU as well as their initial vote against the increased exit fee is legal positioning to give them a less onerous out should they want one in the near future.

    Contracts aren't laws. They aren't "binding" in the sense that you must comply with every word in the contract regardless of its implications. Contracts are agreements between parties, but those agreements themselves must not be afoul of any actual laws and are subject to interpretation. The word "punitive" in the context being used by FSU is legal speak for saying the fee isn't "fair" or "legal".
    The "Punitive" argument would only apply to a liquidated damages provision for breach in a contract. Here, this is a buyout provision that allows a party to leave without breach. They are separate provisions.

  3. #23

    Join Date
    November 29, 2009
    Posts
    2,310
    Quote Originally Posted by MEHOKIE View Post
    The "Punitive" argument would only apply to a liquidated damages provision for breach in a contract. Here, this is a buyout provision that allows a party to leave without breach. They are separate provisions.
    Interesting point. Am I to interepret this then that if FSU left and refused to pay the exit fee then it could argue what the actual damage to the ACC would be and pay for it as damages? So pay actual damages rather than the exit fee.

  4. #24

    Join Date
    October 07, 1999
    Posts
    2,946
    Good point. Maybe this will force them to stay in the Big East (hey, a guy can dream, right?)

  5. #25
    MEHOKIE's Avatar
    Join Date
    October 07, 1999
    Location
    In a van.
    Posts
    62,350
    Quote Originally Posted by Hateful Hokie View Post
    Interesting point. Am I to interepret this then that if FSU left and refused to pay the exit fee then it could argue what the actual damage to the ACC would be and pay for it as damages? So pay actual damages rather than the exit fee.
    It depends on the provisions of the contract. The provisions negotiated for damages in the case of a breach of contract may be calculated differently (for example, allowing a party to the contract to recoup attorneys fees ($$) and expenses ($) in addition to a sum ($$$$) that represents the damages that the breach is estimated to cause) OR it could simply be equivalent to the buyout provision (unlikely).

    The $50 million (indexed) IMHO would likely represent the floor for damages, not the ceiling as parties to a contract want to discourage a breach, yet allow for a change of direction.

    FSU had the opportunity to leave under the old terms of the agreement, it did not. It voted to accept ND, the new buyout terms, and- most likely- a new damages amount. If FSU now chose to breach the agreement and head to another conference, why would a court find a "punitive" damages argument persuasive? FSU had the opportunity to vote with its feet, under the "cheaper" terms, prior to contract modification.

  6. #26
    Senior Member Mercury's Avatar
    Join Date
    February 13, 2012
    Posts
    1,186
    its amazing, in FSU who really runs the university, last time I heard it was the president not some loud mouth Board of Trustee member. That is what folks like WVU don't understand. the invitation for ND was orchestrated by the ACC presidents, NOT the AD, not the coaches or fans, THE PRESIDENTs.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •