- Joined
- Dec 28, 2016
- Messages
- 11,352
We made a commitment to show up, and we reneged on our commitment.
It’s not just a “game,” it’s a business. Our not showing up caused them financial harm.
Not to mention that it greatly inconvenienced me....I had tickets and a hotel room and was ready to drive out there from Dallas. So they don’t have my sympathy in this case.
But the bottom line is the hurricane never hit, and they could have played the game that same weekend. The argument that the players needed to be released so that they could go home and hug their mommies is spurious....that crybaby stuff has nothing to do with Miami’s CONTRACTUAL obligations.
We owe them an away game. Now whether offering them a game in 2023 is good enough, I don’t know.
You are an idiot.
First, there were 99 mile per hour wind gusts recorded at Miami International Airport. Coral Gables recorded wind gusts of 90 mph. And MIA also recorded sustained winds over 50 mph. But regardless, Fischer Island and Fowey Rocks Lighthouse (near Biscayne Bay) each reported sustained winds over 74 mph. So although much of Miami-Dade County experienced (only?) tropical storm winds, some parts of Miami-Dade absolutely experienced sustained category 1 hurricane conditions. Your statement that the "hurricane never hit" Miami is thus uninformed. And if I was the attorney litigating the case for UM, I would welcome any argument that a tropical storm or category 1 hurricane is not an "unforeseen disaster or catastrophe." Good luck convincing a trial judge or jury of that.
Secondly, the force majeure clause at issue (see below) expressly references "unforeseen catastrophes or disasters . . . ," which clearly include hurricanes and tropical storms. As is standard in these types of clauses, the contract provides a non-exclusive list of "sample" catastrophes (that, rather oddly for a school bearing the name "hurricanes," does not expressly list hurricanes), and you will note that "flooding" (parts of Miami-Dade experienced between 2 and 3.5 feet of flooding) is an independent force majeure, as is an impossibility created by an "order of government." And on September 4, 2017, Governor Scott signed Executive Order 17-235, which declared a state of emergency "in every county in the State of Florida."
In light of the foregoing, a strong argument can be made that it became "impossible" for the 70+ scholarship athletes, the coaches, and other essential staff to travel to Arkansas to play the game as scheduled. Although the game could arguably be rescheduled for some future date, you will note the force majeure clause does not provide any guidance to when the game must/shall be rescheduled. On this point, and as commented above, UM could not reschedule to its bye week (f$u took that spot and rescheduling a conference match-up takes precedence over rescheduling a non-conference match-up) or the conference championship week (we were in the ACCCG) like some other schools listed did.
Interestingly, Ark-State's letter (which, incidentally, is posturing... because the overwhelming majority of demand letters are just posturing) notes UM has offered to reschedule at its convenience. Although Arkansas State may wish to argue the game needs to be rescheduled within X amount of years, there is no contractual support for that position (feel free to review the contract, and not just some advocate's letter, if you don't believe me). UM's offer to reschedule in 2024, 2025, 2026, 2027, and 2028 (according to Ark State) arguably satisfies the rescheduling obligation in the force majeure clause.
And if the force majeure clause is triggered and the terms contained therein are satisfied, payment of the $650k (liquidated damages) shall not be made pursuant to the contract (see below).
So it seems to this UM fan that a strong case can be made that UM is trying its best to live up to its contractual obligations, but Ark State is unreasonably attempting to add additional terms to the contract concerning the rescheduling obligation.
Again, you are an idiot.