A-State to sue Miami if payment not made for cancelled game

[423Hurricane]

Are we all in agreement that @Meat is the dumbest of dumbfūcks that posts on CIS?

He has a complete lack of understanding of the facts or legal implications and only understands things at a very basic and simplistic third grade level befitting the stupid look of his cartoon character tag.

I’ve been around for a while, and whether in person, or online, you come across people that are OUSTANDING in one way or another.

@Meat is outstanding in being one of the biggest imbeciles I’ve ever come across. There are several people that post here that I can tell are sharp as tacks, but this drooling troglodyte is the exact opposite.

He’s outstandingly mind-numbingly stupid.

How can so much stupid be stuffed into one person?

The really unnerving part is that you can't fix stupid!

 

[BODESLAM]

I SAY THEY PUT UP AND WE MATCH THEIR 650K, SLIDE THEM INTO THE SCHEDULE THIS YEAR AT THEIR HOUSE FOR A “WINNER TAKES ALL” GRUDGE MATCH AND WE BEAT THE EYEBROWS OFF THEIR FU@KIN’ FOREHEADS LIKE WE DID ND....

 

[423Hurricane]

Whatever the outcome, this could be a PR nightmare for ASsU. They could be viewed as saying the U football extended family's safety and security is valued @ $650K. I agree that ASsu will have an extremely difficult time scheduling any P5 football game in the future.

 

[TheMatador]

I agree with what @TheOriginalCane and some other posters whose replies I read (I admittedly did not read all 9 pages of this thread, so forgive me if I'm repeating anything). There is no breach by UM and thus there are no liquidated damages which Ark St. is entitled to, by virtue of the Force Majeure language in Section 14.

Certainly, a hurricane classifies as an "unforeseen catastrophe or disaster" as noted in Section 14 and I'm confident there is precedent to that effect. The fact FAU chose to play a home game is not dispositive. Their stadium was further away from the cone of uncertainty and, IIRC, was not played at the same time as our game. What is worrisome, however, is you have this case filed in an Arkansas court where the judge(s) is likely to be pro-Arkansas. That's why the lack of a venue provision is perplexing, to say the least. Miami may challenge this and say it belongs in federal court. I don't litigate and thus am not well versed in civil procedure, but this certainly seems to qualify for federal courts based on the parties' locations. Miami may move to dismiss on such grounds IMO.

We win on force majeure-- our cancellation was justified. Bigger issue is whether we were justified in not offering make-up game earlier than 2024. Look at that language. We could face a problem.

Removal to federal district court will not necessarily solve home court advantage. Might still end up with Arkansas homer federal judge. And jury.

I don't think you move to dismiss based on availability of diversity; you remove to federal court. Bigger question is whether we could move to transfer to federal court in Miami. I don't think so.

Since this is a contract issue, I guess this a legal case, and doesn't involve equity. So, this case could involve a jury trial, if it goes that far. Wouldn't want it tried before an Arkansas jury. Any thoughts?

 

[TheMatador]

I SAY THEY PUT UP AND WE MATCH THEIR 650K, SLIDE THEM INTO THE SCHEDULE THIS YEAR AT THEIR HOUSE FOR A “WINNER TAKES ALL” GRUDGE MATCH AND WE BEAT THE EYEBROWS OFF THEIR FU@KIN’ FOREHEADS LIKE WE DID ND....

We should do it in a cage...no rules, no refs. A fight to death.

 

[TheMatador]

100% agreement.

I don't see why we allow the ACC to retain a dime of our revenue.

Pure legal malpractice. I wouldn't sell my used car to a brother of mine under such a shoddy contract.

It does look kind of weak. Don't know why they eliminated provision on governing law. I guess we were just being nice guys and we never expected this to end up in litigation. Maybe we'll do better in the future.

 

[TheMatador]

Yep, qualifies based on diversity jurisdiction and the amount in controversy.

Honestly if Arky St uses their 4 person GC office to work this instead of an actual law firm they're going to get nothing

Don't be so sure.

 

[Poptimus]

We win on force majeure-- our cancellation was justified. Bigger issue is whether we were justified in not offering make-up game earlier than 2024. Look at that language. We could face a problem.

Removal to federal district court will not necessarily solve home court advantage. Might still end up with Arkansas homer federal judge. And jury.

I don't think you move to dismiss based on availability of diversity; you remove to federal court. Bigger question is whether we could move to transfer to federal court in Miami. I don't think so.

Since this is a contract issue, I guess this a legal case, and doesn't involve equity. So, this case could involve a jury trial, if it goes that far. Wouldn't want it tried before an Arkansas jury. Any thoughts?

Yes, Miami will likely move to have the case heard in federal court, not dismiss on grounds of federal jurisdiction alone. And they'll likely do that before entertaining any of the grounds that they will assuredly use to dismiss the case rather than employ a shotgun approach of sorts. As to where they could transfer the case, I believe that you can only move a case to the federal district that encompasses the state court where the initial lawsuit was filed. I did a brief Google search and believe that would also be Arkansas, but federal judges are known to be much more impartial than local judges. It's an uphill battle if that's the road they go down, there's no sugarcoating this. Just like venue is important in a college football game, so is it the same in the courtroom. Looks like we'll be playing on their field, so to speak.

Not sure if this would be a jury trial in the unlikely event it doesn't settle, but that just goes to show you another instance of how crappy this contract is. The lack of a venue provision, the lack of a waiver of jury provision, and the concession to strike out the governing law provision are unconscionable.

Regarding the issue of whether we must offer to makeup the game prior to 2024, I don't see language that specifically states that is required. I believe you're referring to "[a]ny games not played as scheduled shall be rescheduled as such exigencies may dictate or permit" in Section 14. I think the "may dictate or permit" language provides some wiggle room. Quite frankly, it's a horribly drafted contract. You don't have an exigency that MAY do anything. Either something is urgent or it's not. And I assure you that you will not find one shred of case law to support that making up a football game, say, 3 years later rather than 6 years later constitutes a breach. What are the damages? How can Ark St. possibly contend that it suffers damages by waiting until 2024?

 

[Canedog]

If removed to fed court, the judge is likely to push both sides to negotiate and try to reach a settlement. I think the game ends up rescheduled before 2024.

 

[Tony Perps]

We win on force majeure-- our cancellation was justified. Bigger issue is whether we were justified in not offering make-up game earlier than 2024. Look at that language. We could face a problem.

Removal to federal district court will not necessarily solve home court advantage. Might still end up with Arkansas homer federal judge. And jury.

I don't think you move to dismiss based on availability of diversity; you remove to federal court. Bigger question is whether we could move to transfer to federal court in Miami. I don't think so.

Since this is a contract issue, I guess this a legal case, and doesn't involve equity. So, this case could involve a jury trial, if it goes that far. Wouldn't want it tried before an Arkansas jury. Any thoughts?

They aren’t seeking a declaratory judgment at this point in the case and their complaint doesn’t really frame the failure to schedule a game before 2024 as a “breach.” It includes some boilerplate “unreasonable” language, but that’s whatever. In my opinion that is a huge loser case and that’s why they are not even pursuing it at this point.

 

[Pixelated bukake]

This may have been covered, so forgive me if it was. Regarding litigation, removal to Federal court requires diversity, and an amount in controversy in excess of $75,000. It appears that both would apply, and the Federal court should have jurisdiction.

Regarding crossing out the Governing Law section, that should have little impact unless Arkansas, and Florida have vastly different views of contract law. Since this is a contractual issue, details such as damage caps, extra-contractual damages, etc., will not matter.

Under Force Majeure, I am not comfortable with the "unforeseen catastrophe or disaster such as" language. A narrow minded view will say that "hurricane" is not listed in the example causes. This is why better written contracts will state something like "including, but not limited to" language, which would allow a reasonable and prudent argumentation of a hurricane qualifying as an "unforeseen catastrophe or disaster."

The statement "(a)ny games not played as scheduled shall be rescheduled as such exigencies may dictate or permit" can be interpreted as a game can be canceled for cause as circumstances permit. So, the offer to play the game at a later date should be spun as 'there has been no breach as we have offered to reschedule.'

I assume there will be an attempt to negotiate some sort of settlement. Of course, if both sides stick to their guns, then it will be litigated, likely in Federal court, where I would like our chances.

 

[TpaBayFlyFisher]

Has anyone checked Pacer to see who appeared for Miami?

 

[Calinative]

This may have been covered, so forgive me if it was. Regarding litigation, removal to Federal court requires diversity, and an amount in controversy in excess of $75,000. It appears that both would apply, and the Federal court should have jurisdiction.

Regarding crossing out the Governing Law section, that should have little impact unless Arkansas, and Florida have vastly different views of contract law. Since this is a contractual issue, details such as damage caps, extra-contractual damages, etc., will not matter.

Under Force Majeure, I am not comfortable with the "unforeseen catastrophe or disaster such as" language. A narrow minded view will say that "hurricane" is not listed in the example causes. This is why better written contracts will state something like "including, but not limited to" language, which would allow a reasonable and prudent argumentation of a hurricane qualifying as an "unforeseen catastrophe or disaster."

The statement "(a)ny games not played as scheduled shall be rescheduled as such exigencies may dictate or permit" can be interpreted as a game can be canceled for cause as circumstances permit. So, the offer to play the game at a later date should be spun as 'there has been no breach as we have offered to reschedule.'

I assume there will be an attempt to negotiate some sort of settlement. Of course, if both sides stick to their guns, then it will be litigated, likely in Federal court, where I would like our chances.

Why on earth we'd (or anyone in the ACC) would sign the contract that gives Earthquake as an example of an "unforeseen catastrophe or disaster" but not a ******* Hurricane is beyone me.

In any scheduling contract we sign, there should be NO DOUBT that we are able to cancel games due to Hurricanes, whether its an away or home game. The fact that there can even be an argument just shows how **** a contract it was for us...and I don't know **** about this kinda stuff.
I just know if you're in Miami it makes a helluva lot of sense to mention a Hurricane as a reason to cancel the game.

 

[RVACane]

If there is a clearly delineated force majeure clause in the contract that allows Miami an out, the hillbillies have a hard case to make.

It all depends on the wording of the contract around the clause.

Don’t discount the venue either, sadly.

I'm concerned about the bias of the venue. We need to get it changed to a neutral location. I don't see how we get a fair trial there in their home town/state.

 

[Tony Perps]

I'm concerned about the bias of the venue. We need to get it changed to a neutral location. I don't see how we get a fair trial there in their home town/state.

Not happening unless Arkansas has some goofy venue laws.

Why on earth we'd (or anyone in the ACC) would sign the contract that gives Earthquake as an example of an "unforeseen catastrophe or disaster" but not a ******* Hurricane is beyone me.

In any scheduling contract we sign, there should be NO DOUBT that we are able to cancel games due to Hurricanes, whether its an away or home game. The fact that there can even be an argument just shows how **** a contract it was for us...and I don't know **** about this kinda stuff.
I just know if you're in Miami it makes a helluva lot of sense to mention a Hurricane as a reason to cancel the game.

The fact that it doesn’t mention a Hurricane is of zero relevance. Everybody knows that a force majeure clause covers natural disasters.

 

[RVACane]

Not happening unless Arkansas has some goofy venue laws.


The fact that it doesn’t mention a Hurricane is of zero relevance. Everybody knows that a force majeure clause covers natural disasters.

Agree on force majeure though they'll try to say we could've made it up after the ACCCG not that it would be reasonable.

If we have to litigate there we don't want to bring in some hot shot Miami attorney. We're better off with their best Foghorn Leghorn...a guy who eats chicken n dumplings with the judge at the local cafe on Thursdays.

 

[Calinative]

Not happening unless Arkansas has some goofy venue laws.


The fact that it doesn’t mention a Hurricane is of zero relevance. Everybody knows that a force majeure clause covers natural disasters.

Well whats the point of not including it though? like not including it just makes it more complicated plain and simple.

 

[OriginalCanesCanesCanes]

This just all boils down to the fact that Arkansas State is unwilling to play the game in 2024. That is the first available away date we have to play a team in their classification. That’s just how it shakes out.

They are being extremely unreasonable. Miami is more than willing to schedule them if there is an away cancellation in the G5 classification before then. That’s just how it shakes out. We don’t need or have to do any more than that for them. We don’t have to bend over backwards for them. We are certainly not going to replace a P5 cancellation, with them, a G5 team.

That’s the first available day we have for them, take it or leave it.

 

[52CANES]

Why on earth we'd (or anyone in the ACC) would sign the contract that gives Earthquake as an example of an "unforeseen catastrophe or disaster" but not a ******* Hurricane is beyone me.

In any scheduling contract we sign, there should be NO DOUBT that we are able to cancel games due to Hurricanes, whether its an away or home game. The fact that there can even be an argument just shows how **** a contract it was for us...and I don't know **** about this kinda stuff.
I just know if you're in Miami it makes a helluva lot of sense to mention a Hurricane as a reason to cancel the game.

I agree with you, but do you think it matters when FEMA classified it as a "Major Disaster" on Sept 10th, 2017?

Seems like the "..or disaster" part is covered:

 

[TheMatador]

Has anyone checked Pacer to see who appeared for Miami?

This case was filed in state court. It won't be on Pacer.

I doubt that UM has even answered yet. Suit was just filed less than a week ago. So, UM might not have made an appearance yet.