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

[Cans4life]

The fact that "hurricane" wasn't expressly stated isn't a deal killer here. The clause doesn't limit it to those events listed. The way the clause is written it's not an all inclusive list. It appears to allow for other unforeseen events not listed. On the part of "impossible" I agree with you. This game wasn't impossible for Miami to play but it was impractical to have us fly out there and play a game when a cat. 5 was coming right at us.

Nailed it.

 

[Ssoto0055]

The hurricane never hit?

Why is this guy posting here? He has no idea about anything.

Using his logic, Katrina never hit New Orleans. The eye actually hit further east just like Irma's eye came across the Lower Keys and up through Naples.

 

[Ssoto0055]

Contract interpretation is a funny thing in practice. The "four corners" approach is a lovely idea in theory, but it is a quite frequent and unfortunate reality how many judges decide to read into contracts what they want to see.

The veil threat here is forum. Arkansas is conservative and the South, and they believe filing suit in Arkansas will ensure a huge home court advantage and a strict interpretation of contract terms. They are probably dead on correct.

Unfortunately, this thing likely plays out with a settlement of some kind and a lesson hopefully for our AD.

UM

Even though it's a contract dispute and we would argue in Arkansas, Miami can and probably would move it to federal court under diversity grounds. However, I think your last statement is really what this is about. Arkansas lost money and exposure because Miami was coming to town. They want something to just go away.

 

[Ssoto0055]

I want Miami to conduct itself honorably, which means standing by our commitments. I also want this team to have tougher skin.... I think it sends a terrible message that we run and hide at the first sign of bad weather.

If I were the coach, we would have played the game rain or shine. I'm not releasing the players so they can go be with their mommies. I want hard asses on my team, not mommas boys. And the way we acted during the "hurricane" that never even hit us.... it was weak as ****.

As far as I'm concerned, we're ducking Arkansas State. We need to man up and prove that we can go to their house and beat them. Shut them up on the field.

Click on the video and just turn up the volume and listen to the video. That's what people in the Carribean experienced and what we were potentially in for. Yet you're worried about "manning up"? We were in a situation were lives were potentially at stake.

 

[Tony Perps]

@Meat is a horrible human and far from a canes fan.

 

[Salt]

The fact that "hurricane" wasn't expressly stated isn't a deal killer here. The clause doesn't limit it to those events listed. The way the clause is written it's not an all inclusive list. It appears to allow for other unforeseen events not listed. On the part of "impossible" I agree with you. This game wasn't impossible for Miami to play but it was impractical to have us fly out there and play a game when a cat. 5 was coming right at us.

"impractical" is a synonym of "impossible". Again, the words in the contract are fine to a sensible person with even moderate English language skills. For a lawyer being handsomely paid to quibble about words it is a whole together different situation.

 

[Classic]

The fact that "hurricane" wasn't expressly stated isn't a deal killer here. The clause doesn't limit it to those events listed. The way the clause is written it's not an all inclusive list. It appears to allow for other unforeseen events not listed. On the part of "impossible" I agree with you. This game wasn't impossible for Miami to play but it was impractical to have us fly out there and play a game when a cat. 5 was coming right at us.

I didn't say it was a deal killer. I suggested it was inconsequential but indicative of poor drafting.

 

[TheMatador]

Miami attorneys are an early 48 pt favorite over the Arky State loy-yurz.

Not so fast, my friend.

Ark. St. made point of saying they will file in state court in Arkansas.

Home court advantage. Might be worth plaintiff's summary judgement.

Check out whether Vegas agrees.

 

[TheMatador]

I didn't say it was a deal killer. I suggested it was inconsequential but indicative of poor drafting.

But who drafted? That could be important. Which state's law applies?

 

[miamilaw07]

"impractical" is a synonym of "impossible". Again, the words in the contract are fine to a sensible person with even moderate English language skills. For a lawyer being handsomely paid to quibble about words it is a whole together different situation.

Impractical is not a synonym for impossible. Stop talking. Words have meanings and the use of the word "impossible" was a mistake.

 

[TheOriginalCane]

Using his logic, Katrina never hit New Orleans. The eye actually hit further east just like Irma's eye came across the Lower Keys and up through Naples.

Technically, Meat is correct. Katrina never hit New Orleans. Tulane should have played all of their games and honored all of their contracts, the breach of the levee was not an "act of God", it was the negligence of the Army Corps of Engineers.

This Meat guy is a lot smarter than I once thought.

 

[TheOriginalCane]

Not so fast, my friend.

Ark. St. made point of saying they will file in state court in Arkansas.

Home court advantage. Might be worth plaintiff's summary judgement.

Check out whether Vegas agrees.

Nothing in the contract that specifies venue.

A-State files in Arkansas.

Miami files a diversity of jurisdiction motion to remove the case to federal court.

Problem mitigated.

 

[TheOriginalCane]

Even though it's a contract dispute and we would argue in Arkansas, Miami can and probably would move it to federal court under diversity grounds. However, I think your last statement is really what this is about. Arkansas lost money and exposure because Miami was coming to town. They want something to just go away.

Is A-State going to share their bounty with the poor, poor restaurants and hotels of Jonesboro?

Yeah, I didn't think so.

I'm sick of their whiny AD and his whiny letters boo-hooing what "happened" to the "community" of Jonesboro. Would they have preferred that our 85 football players showed up and we brought ZERO FANS because they were all back in Florida protecting their homes (except Saint Meat, who is from Dallas)?

Seriously, how much could all of the combined Taco Bells and McDonalds in Jonesboro have lost?

 

[TheOriginalCane]

But who drafted? That could be important. Which state's law applies?

At the top of the contract, it says it's a standard ACC "Football Competition Agreement".

I think we know who drafted it. The same geniuses who didn't bother to create an ACC Channel because we had that sweet sweet deal with Jefferson Pilot.

 

[simplycanes]

Had time to look at the letters by counsel.

First, the ACC needs to be ****-slapped for that being their form football competition agreement.

Then somebody in the athletic department needs to volunteer a single hand as tribute for not strengthening the **** thing, especially the force majeure language, especially as a Florida school that should be keenly aware of the threat of hurricanes.

Even the ASU lawyer had the sense to add "epidemic" (lol, wut?) to the force majeure language because he's keenly aware of the threat the deadly strains of gonorrhea in Arkansas pose.

Unfortunately, the agreement states that "[t]he contract shall be void with respect to any of the games in an event that it becomes impossible to play such game(s) by reason of an unforeseen catastrophe or disaster..." (emphasis added). A hurricane certainly qualifies as an unforeseen disaster, but the threshold for voiding the contract with respect to the Jonesboro game is that it needed to be impossible for us to play the game.

We can certainly make a case that it was impossible, my boy @No_Fly_Zone did an admirable job, and we have common sense on our side, but contracts are contracts, and the interpretation by a court will likely be restricted to the words on the page because the universities are "sophisticated parties" and "impossible" is not ambiguous language. And even if it's somehow considered ambiguous, courts generally interpret ambiguous terms against the drafter of the agreement -- in this case, the ACC, which includes us. "Impossible" is a difficult (and crazy!) standard. It's not favorable language.

If we somehow won the "impossible" argument, then yeah, we win. The force majeure clause allows us to reschedule the game as "such exigencies may dictate or permit," without any limitation on how many years down the road. But again, we're in trouble because of the ACC's ****-poor form agreement.

Like I said before, I think we settle and call it a day.

Regardless of the legal interpretation, I'm genuinely shocked that Arkansas State is making this play. They're angry we're not trying harder to make it work, but it's an indecent thing to do given the circumstances. We don't have an opening until 2024 -- who cares? Get your money then. And I hope it discourages other big time programs from scheduling them.

Backwoods mother****ers.

When all is said and done, this is the portion that matters the most. You're right, we'll likely settle, but what are the long-term implications and costs versus what is gained.

From the Arkie State perspective, sure you get a six figure check but the chances of ever getting a marquee opponent to consider scheduling a home-home with you is now officially zero. Short-sighted decision given the national coverage these storms have gotten these past few years. You just look ridiculous.

From the UM perspective, this will do nothing to us one way or the other. Any program in the country save for the chicken-**** Gators will still schedule us because we draw ratings. The cost of litigating this is just a speeding ticket to remind us that scheduling these ****ball teams is a waste of our time. There is nothing to gain and only downside. Even scheduling the FIU and FAU of the world is questionable. Schools like Arkansas State should be downright forbidden.

 

[Salt]

Impractical is not a synonym for impossible. Stop talking. Words have meanings and the use of the word "impossible" was a mistake.

of course, words have meaning. But the meanings conveyed by those words can take on different connotations. Which goes back to as one famous political scoundrel once said under deposition "it depends on what the meaning of "is" is." So blow it through your pie hole.

im·pos·si·ble
[imˈpäsəb(ə)l]
https://www.canesinsight.com/javascript:void(0)
ADJECTIVE

1. not able to occur, exist, or be done:
   "a seemingly impossible task" ·
   [more]
   "it was almost impossible to keep up with him"
   synonyms: not possible · out of the question · unfeasible · impractical · impracticable · nonviable · unworkable · unthinkable · unimaginable · inconceivable · absurd · unattainable
   
   
   
   

 

[Tony Perps]

of course, words have meaning. But the meanings conveyed by those words can take on different connotations. Which goes back to as one famous political scoundrel once said under deposition "it depends on what the meaning of "is" is." So blow it through your pie hole.

im·pos·si·ble
[imˈpäsəb(ə)l]
ADJECTIVE

1. not able to occur, exist, or be done:
   "a seemingly impossible task" ·
   [more]
   "it was almost impossible to keep up with him"
   synonyms: not possible · out of the question · unfeasible · impractical · impracticable · nonviable · unworkable · unthinkable · unimaginable · inconceivable · absurd · unattainable
   
   
   

Impracticaability has a totally different meaning under contract law than impossible.

 

[Salt]

Impracticaability has a totally different meaning under contract law than impossible.

like I said earlier, I am not a lawyer. But even if the word was "impractical" instead of "impossible" you would still have a team of lawyers on retainer willing to argue what it means if it benefits their client.

 

[Classic]

like I said earlier, I am not a lawyer. But even if the word was "impractical" instead of "impossible" you would still have a team of lawyers on retainer willing to argue what it means if it benefits their client.

We've noticed.

 

[deleted19096]

Reschedule them in the future so we can beat them badly, in front of their fans and then seduce their local women with booze, in their economy hotels with Free HBO, as we help to overrun the meter on the sitters watching their kids!

The beating on the field will resemble an episode of Game of Thrones.