Here's the ridiculous contract Tennessee was prepared to give Greg Schiano

Having authority to sign a contract as the AD, does not negate the stated signatory requirements that UT adheres to in contractual matters. Any non-delegated contract requires the signatures of Davenport and Miller to be legally binding, regardless of who negotiated it in the first place.

That's not what apparent authority of an agent is.

There's more here than you seem to think there is.
 
Schiano is going to get something out of this. Currie was representing UT...and you can bet Davenport was fully aware that Currie was in the process of signing Schiano. If UT's intent was to have Schiano as it's coach then UT is on the hook for some $$$$$.

A formal contract doesn't have to be signed. Cuonzo (sp) Martin went about a year without a formal agreement with UT. Both partied operated under the MOU.

If Schiano reached out to potential assistants as UT's head coach (after signing the MOU) then I would say he was, at least in his own mind, doing work as UT's head coach.

Cuonzo operated under a fully executed, and legally binding MOU; that's the caveat.
 
Thing about that is people reach out to potential assistants even during their interview process. Not sure that would be a smoking gun from that perspective.

I agree if it was during the interview phase. If he conducted phone calls as the HC of UT (AFTER the MOU was signed) then it's a different game, IMO.
 
That's not what apparent authority of an agent is.

There's more here than you seem to think there is.

No, there is not. Currie could not enter the University of Tennessee into a legally binding contract on his own. Not based on the bylaws and requirements for legally binding contracts involving the University of Tennessee, and not under Tennessee state law pertaining to contract enforcement.

Nothing can stop Schiano from filing a lawsuit, but it will be dismissed, as there is no fully executed MOU, or employment contract.
 
Cuonzo operated under a fully executed, and legally binding MOU; that's the caveat.

Sure, but it wasn't the formal contract. That's my point to those saying since a formal contract wasn't signed...

Schiano will get something out of it. I don't see any way around it. A contract doesn't have to be on official stationary to be binding. As long as the parties acted in good faith and Currie had permission to execute it (no way he could have with Davenport's permission) then it's valid.

Has Davenport denied giving Currie the authority to present the MOU to Schiano for the purpose of becoming UT's HC?
 
Sure, but it wasn't the formal contract. That's my point to those saying since a formal contract wasn't signed...

Schiano will get something out of it. I don't see any way around it. A contract doesn't have to be on official stationary to be binding. As long as the parties acted in good faith and Currie had permission to execute it (no way he could have with Davenport's permission) then it's valid.

Has Davenport denied giving Currie the authority to present the MOU to Schiano for the purpose of becoming UT's HC?

Cuonzo was working under a "binding agreement" with the University, once he signed his MOU.

cuonzomou.png


The University had 180 days in order to draft the terms of the MOU into an employment agreement, which they did.
 
No, there is not. Currie could not enter the University of Tennessee into a legally binding contract on his own. Not based on the bylaws and requirements for legally binding contracts involving the University of Tennessee, and not under Tennessee state law pertaining to contract enforcement.

Nothing can stop Schiano from filing a lawsuit, but it will be dismissed, as there is no fully executed MOU, or employment contract.

OK, I've tried to help, but I can't force you to realize that there's more to the law than what you think you know.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
OK, I've tried to help, but I can't force you to realize that there's more to the law than what you think you know.

Feel free to cite case law or precedent in the state of Tennessee where a partially-executed MOU is considered legally binding.
 
Never have so many seen such poor legal information rendered over such as Schiano's MOU.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
Cuonzo was working under a "binding agreement" with the University, once he signed his MOU.

cuonzomou.png


The University had 180 days in order to draft the terms of the MOU into an employment agreement, which they did.

Nice find. Clean language unlike this hot mess. I believe what I heard about the formal contract with CM was that it wasn't signed until about 1 year afterwards. Not sure what the holdup was but there was, obviously, an agreement in place.

I hope UT can get out of this but I look at it if it happened to me. If I agreed to become UT's head coach, signed the doc along with a rep from UT, started working in that capacity (we don't know that for certain) and was later told we changed our mind....I would seek damages.
 
DocuSign documents do not generate multiple iterations of the same document depending on when/if additional signatures are placed in them electronically; there's still only a single electronic document.

The MOU that was obtained by 247 sports was obtained from UT via an open records request, and unless Schiano can produce a different document with Davenport's and Miller's signatures, then this is a fancily-worded piece of paper with John Currie's autograph, and Greg Schiano's e-signature on it, and not a legally binding agreement with the University of Tennessee.

I agree on the single electronic document.* I'm not arguing iterations or suggesting there are multiple DocuSigns. The point is if you had a court asking questions about the Contract Policy of UT's relation to it for example, there maybe evidence that shows it was sent as a supporting document to the contract.

*Within the DocuSign database, they may (and quite likely) have some sort of versioning on the electronic objects. DocuSign almost certainly has the thing as it existed in each stage in the event of a subpoena regarding how a given contract was put together. You are correct materially that these don't constitute separate documents, and Schiano wouldn't have access to them, and that they wouldn't have additional signatures.
 
I agree on the single electronic document.* I'm not arguing iterations or suggesting there are multiple DocuSigns. The point is if you had a court asking questions about the Contract Policy of UT's relation to it for example, there maybe evidence that shows it was sent as a supporting document to the contract.

*Within the DocuSign database, they may (and quite likely) have some sort of versioning on the electronic objects. DocuSign almost certainly has the thing as it existed in each stage in the event of a subpoena regarding how a given contract was put together. You are correct materially that these don't constitute separate documents, and Schiano wouldn't have access to them, and that they wouldn't have additional signatures.

The document could have been electronically delivered, to Schiano, and then printed out for Davenport and Miller, or electronically transferred to UT's records office, awaiting Davenport's and Miller's own e-signatures, pretty sure I saw language in the MOU stating that in case of multiple counterparts, they would all be considered the same document once it was fully executed.

The crux is what constitutes 'fully exectued', which according to UT, is that it has the Chancellor's and the CFO's signatures on it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
Feel free to cite case law or precedent in the state of Tennessee where a partially-executed MOU is considered legally binding.

I pointed out the issue, and it's well-settled law. You're responsible for your own homework, when you try to argue about law that you don't know.

That's friendly advice, in case that doesn't come across that way.
 
I pointed out the issue, and it's well-settled law. You're responsible for your own homework, when you try to argue about law that you don't know.

That's friendly advice, in case that doesn't come across that way.

Please direct me to the post where you cited case law or any legal precedent in the state of Tennessee where a partially-executed MOU was considered legally binding or, please cite the Tennessee law that says an "authorizing agent" can disregard the bylaws and statutes of an organization they represent when entering said organization into a legally binding contract.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
the thing about a contract dispute will always be there are two sides to the story.

we wouldn't need lawyers if it was cut and dried.

there will always be a lawyer who will take the opposing side.

that's how they make a living.

to take any other view would diminish the role of the lawyer.

one is going to argue one way and another will take the opposing view and both will get their cut in the end!

how could we live without them.

maybe a reigning monarch would be the answer!
 
To finalize that MOU, it seems to me that Schiano would have had to begin the offered and accepted job working as head coach at the University of Tennesseee.

It might possibly have been years since he even set foot in the state of Tennessee.

He might have accepted the job, but the fact remains he never started that job!

The elements of contract thus have some holes!

Lawyers can start talking about offering, acceptance, performance, and consideration.

In this case, I don't think all of those essential elements exist.

But, I don't get paid to think!
 

VN Store



Back
Top