forums

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

Tony Perps said:
I agree. That position was ludicrous, but still has nothing to do with the lack of the word “hurricane” in there.
Click to expand...
This looks like an ACC Contract all the conference schools use for games, I think it should include Hurricane as an example under that clause. Thats all im saying. If we were a Pac12 school there should be more emphasis on Earthquakes/fires. Thats just simple to me, and it takes 1 minute to correct.

It should be so crystal clear that we can cancel a game for a hurricane, that even the stupidest opposing team fan would have to admit it. Instead we have idiots arguing that this game wasn't impossible to play and therefore we broke the contract.
 
Advertisement
calinative umstudent said:
This looks like an ACC Contract all the conference schools use for games, I think it should include Hurricane as an example under that clause. Thats all im saying. If we were a Pac12 school there should be more emphasis on Earthquakes/fires. Thats just simple to me, and it takes 1 minute to correct.

It should be so crystal clear that we can cancel a game for a hurricane, that even the stupidest opposing team fan would have to admit it. Instead we have idiots arguing that this game wasn't impossible to play and therefore we broke the contract.
Click to expand...

You really don’t get it.
 
Advertisement
Tony Perps said:
You really don’t get it.
Click to expand...
I don't think you're understanding my point of writing in one ******* word takes away like half of the arguments you see about this issue. Thats the point im making. My point is why isn't it so clear in our contract that we can cancel for a hurricane that a kid with the downs would understand it. You're making this more complicated than it has to be....just like whoever did the contract.
 
OriginalCanesCanesCanes said:
Are you serious?
Click to expand...
i just read the contract. they didnt agree to litigate in casa de culo. in fact, there is no explicit or agreed upon choice of forum. i would imagine that UM's attorney would remove the case to federal court and then file a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. let them come here and litigate in miami dade. not sure that a state or federal court in arkansas is going to be able to exercise jurisdiction over UM. i hope that is the case.

the force majeure clause sucks, it could not be any more unclear. is a hurricane that has yet to hit but is coming our way an "unforeseen catastrophe or disaster"

the hillbillies that wrote this contract should be sued for malpractice.
 
Last edited:
calinative umstudent said:
I don't think you're understanding my point of writing in one ******* word takes away like half of the arguments you see about this issue. Thats the point im making. My point is why isn't it so clear in our contract that we can cancel for a hurricane that a kid with the downs would understand it. You're making this more complicated than it has to be....just like whoever did the contract.
Click to expand...

No it doesn’t. Stop arguuing with me. There is no argument by ASU that a hurricane is not a “force majeure” event. You arent a lawyer, you don’t know anything about this, you’re just another message board douche who has to be right about everything.
 
Advertisement
rsa coral gables said:
i just read the contract. they didnt agree to litigate in casa de culo. in fact, there is no explicit or agreed upon choice of forum. i would imagine that UM's attorney would remove the case to federal court and then file a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. let them come here and litigate in miami dade. not sure that a state or federal court in arkansas is going to be able to exercise jurisdiction over UM. i hope that is the case.

the force majeure clause sucks, it could not be any more unclear. is a hurricane that has yet to hit but is coming our way an "unforeseen catastrophe or disaster"

the hillbillies that wrote this contract should be sued for malpractice.
Click to expand...

bruh....
 
We can open with them down the road in the 1st Annual Curb Stomp Bowl. When we're up by 60 with a quarter to go, we keep running the score up. Then we sue them for imitating a football team. Afterward we take their girlfriends (aka:sisters) and introduce them to razors and indoor plumbing. Finally we take them out for dinner where they can use forks and knives (other than for picking teeth) for the first time. Now if you see any crosses burning...run...right to the airport.
 
77cane said:
We can open with them down the road in the 1st Annual Curb Stomp Bowl. When we're up by 60 with a quarter to go, we keep running the score up. Then we sue them for imitating a football team. Afterward we take their girlfriends (aka:sisters) and introduce them to razors and indoor plumbing. Finally we take them out for dinner where they can use forks and knives (other than for picking teeth) for the first time. Now if you see any crosses burning...run...right to the airport.
Click to expand...

Idk man that sounds like a lot of ******* work
 
Advertisement
TheMatador said:
I have a feeling these contracts receive most of the attention by athletic department staff, not the GC's staff. It probably received fairly little review. Nobody contemplated the kind of scenario that was actually played out. They gave it relatively limited thought
Click to expand...
I tend to think this hit the legal department and that's who negotiated this and struck out the Governing Law provision, among others. I'd be very surprised if any contracts are negotiated by the athletic department alone.

I'm serious, heads should roll over this. The lawyers in UM's legal department are almost assuredly not licensed to practice in Arkansas, and the school is going to have to hire external counsel to assist with this litigation. The legal fees alone are going to be upwards 6 figures, I assure you. This will settle, but this is going to cost UM dearly, in my opinion. This is money that could have instead gone to the defensive line coach or any number of other better uses. I'd like to know who initialed next to these concessions in the agreement, because that is exactly what they are - concessions. UM didn't get **** from the negotiation of this agreement.
 
Poptimus said:
I tend to think this hit the legal department and that's who negotiated this and struck out the Governing Law provision, among others. I'd be very surprised if any contracts are negotiated by the athletic department alone.

I'm serious, heads should roll over this. The lawyers in UM's legal department are almost assuredly not licensed to practice in Arkansas, and the school is going to have to hire external counsel to assist with this litigation. The legal fees alone are going to be upwards 6 figures, I assure you. This will settle, but this is going to cost UM dearly, in my opinion. This is money that could have instead gone to the defensive line coach or any number of other better uses. I'd like to know who initialed next to these concessions in the agreement, because that is exactly what they are - concessions. UM didn't get **** from the negotiation of this agreement.
Click to expand...

Just don’t, bro. You’re way out of your depth here. This is literally child’s play.
 
OriginalCanesCanesCanes said:
Just don’t, bro. You’re way out of your depth here. This is literally child’s play.
Click to expand...
I don't know what you're implying, but I do this for a living and if someone at my company drafted a contract such as this they'd be fired. Miami is stuck litigating in Arkansas state court or in federal court in Arkansas. I highly doubt any of the staff counsel are licensed there, so this is about to get costly, settlement or not. Yeah, Miami is in the right here, but if Ark St doesn't want to settle, there's going to be costly discovery, costly court attendance in Arkansas, etc. Usually the only way court costs and attorney's fees are recouped is if you win the lawsuit and don't settle, but given the shoddy nature of this contract, that wasn't even spelled out, either. It's a total disaster of a contract.
 
Advertisement
Poptimus said:
I don't know what you're implying, but I do this for a living and if someone at my company drafted a contract such as this they'd be fired. Miami is stuck litigating in Arkansas state court or in federal court in Arkansas. I highly doubt any of the staff counsel are licensed there, so this is about to get costly, settlement or not. Yeah, Miami is in the right here, but if Ark St doesn't want to settle, there's going to be costly discovery, costly court attendance in Arkansas, etc. Usually the only way court costs and attorney's fees are recouped is if you win the lawsuit and don't settle, but given the shoddy nature of this contract, that wasn't even spelled out, either. It's a total disaster of a contract.
Click to expand...

You do college football contracts for a living?
 
rsa coral gables said:
i just read the contract. they didnt agree to litigate in casa de culo. in fact, there is no explicit or agreed upon choice of forum. i would imagine that UM's attorney would remove the case to federal court and then file a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. let them come here and litigate in miami dade. not sure that a state or federal court in arkansas is going to be able to exercise jurisdiction over UM. i hope that is the case.

the force majeure clause sucks, it could not be any more unclear. is a hurricane that has yet to hit but is coming our way an "unforeseen catastrophe or disaster"

the hillbillies that wrote this contract should be sued for malpractice.
Click to expand...
Well, Miami agreed to the contract. I guess Miami has some hillbillies in the Athletic Dept. and/or it's GC's office. If it now comes back to bite us they might be just as much at fault. I have a feeling nobody really contemplated that the clause would ever have to be invoked or that it would even reach this--a lawsuit.
 
Poptimus said:
I don't know what you're implying, but I do this for a living and if someone at my company drafted a contract such as this they'd be fired. Miami is stuck litigating in Arkansas state court or in federal court in Arkansas. I highly doubt any of the staff counsel are licensed there, so this is about to get costly, settlement or not. Yeah, Miami is in the right here, but if Ark St doesn't want to settle, there's going to be costly discovery, costly court attendance in Arkansas, etc. Usually the only way court costs and attorney's fees are recouped is if you win the lawsuit and don't settle, but given the shoddy nature of this contract, that wasn't even spelled out, either. It's a total disaster of a contract.
Click to expand...
I'm sure they will be far more careful in the contracts they sign in the future. They probably never expected this.
 
OriginalCanesCanesCanes said:
You do college football contracts for a living?
Click to expand...

There doesn't seem to be anything different from regular principles of contract law involved here. He doesn't have to be a specialist in college football contracts. I think the most problematic issue might be whether we have to perform at a later date or whether we're excused. They don't want to wait until 2024.

I could be wrong although I think we've got more than a decent argument on the issue of force majeure, i.e., cancellation of the game on the original date.
 
Advertisement
Back
Top