Bob shoop sued by PSU

#77
#77
volfannbama said:
One of the many things wrong with America right here. If Shoop said he would pay the money, he needs to pay the money.
Click to expand...

There's a difference between giving your word and signing a contract, though. When two parties sign a contract with one another, it's acknowledged that both sides will take full advantage of the contract for their own benefit in as many ways as possible.


Sounds like PSU just did a bad job of drawing up a contract and Shoop's lawyer and/or agent advised him to take advantage of that.
 
#78
#78
Darth_Shiveman said:
There's a difference between giving your word and signing a contract, though. When two parties sign a contract with one another, it's acknowledged that both sides will take full advantage of the contract for their own benefit in as many ways as possible.


Sounds like PSU just did a bad job of drawing up a contract and Shoop's lawyer and/or agent advised him to take advantage of that.
Click to expand...
Then why did Shoop agree to pay?
 
#80
#80
volfannbama said:
Then why did Shoop agree to pay?
Click to expand...

Take it step by step here:

He signed a contract to pay "liquidated damages" for up to half of His remaining contract.

However "liquidated damages" are only legally enforceable when it can be proven that the contracting party was monetarily damaged by the person who broke the contract. They cannot be legally enforced as a penalty just for breaking the contract.

So unless PSU can prove that Bob Shoop breaking his contract caused them to lose $890K, there's no way they can legally require him to pay those damages.

Edit: he probably agreed to the contract because his lawyer told him something like "I can't believe these guys are this dumb, they can't make you pay that, go ahead and sign it."
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 5 people
#82
#82
Darth_Shiveman said:
Take it step by step here:

He signed a contract to pay "liquidated damages" for up to half of His remaining contract.

However "liquidated damages" are only legally enforceable when it can be proven that the contracting party was monetarily damaged by the person who broke the contract. They cannot be legally enforced as a penalty just for breaking the contract.

So unless PSU can prove that Bob Shoop breaking his contract caused them to lose $890K, there's no way they can legally require him to pay those damages.

Edit: he probably agreed to the contract because his lawyer told him something like "I can't believe these guys are this dumb, they can't make you pay that, go ahead and sign it."
Click to expand...
Well the way our defense played, maybe Penn State owes Shoop money.
 
#88
#88
Darth_Shiveman said:
He signed a contract to pay "liquidated damages" for up to half of His remaining contract.

However "liquidated damages" are only legally enforceable when it can be proven that the contracting party was monetarily damaged by the person who broke the contract. They cannot be legally enforced as a penalty just for breaking the contract.

So unless PSU can prove that Bob Shoop breaking his contract caused them to lose $890K, there's no way they can legally require him to pay those damages.
Click to expand...

I'm not an attorney, so I'm sure there are some on here that can give better insight into this. However, I've had some education in contract law, and I'm not sure your assessment is correct.

A liquidated damages clause is typically added to a contract because there are instances where actual damages are difficult, if not impossible, to calculate. Essentially, the parties agree on the front end that in the instance of a specific breach of contract, the breaching party will pay the injured party an agreed-upon amount in lieu of attempting to calculate actual damages.

So, to say that "...unless PSU can prove that Bob Shoop breaking his contract caused them to lose $890K, there's no way they can legally require him to pay those damages" is false. The very purpose of a liquidated damages clause is so that the injured party won't have to set about proving how much the breach caused them to lose.

The specific clause in Shoop's contract reads:

...the parties acknowledge and agree that the damage to the University therefrom is not readily ascertainable and that in lieu of actual damages, Employee shall pay liquidated damages to University in the amount representing fifty percent (50%) of Employee's base salary...
Click to expand...

So, I'm not sure Shoop can argue that his breach didn't actually cost PSU $900K, as the contract he signed specifically says that the actual cost doesn't matter.

In the end, I'm sure they'll come to an agreement on a settlement.
 
#90
#90
bamawriter said:
I'm not an attorney, so I'm sure there are some on here that can give better insight into this. However, I've had some education in contract law, and I'm not sure your assessment is correct.

A liquidated damages clause is typically added to a contract because there are instances where actual damages are difficult, if not impossible, to calculate. Essentially, the parties agree on the front end that in the instance of a specific breach of contract, the breaching party will pay the injured party an agreed-upon amount in lieu of attempting to calculate actual damages.

So, to say that "...unless PSU can prove that Bob Shoop breaking his contract caused them to lose $890K, there's no way they can legally require him to pay those damages" is false. The very purpose of a liquidated damages clause is so that the injured party won't have to set about proving how much the breach caused them to lose.

The specific clause in Shoop's contract reads:



So, I'm not sure Shoop can argue that his breach didn't actually cost PSU $900K, as the contract he signed specifically says that the actual cost doesn't matter.

In the end, I'm sure they'll come to an agreement on a settlement.
Click to expand...

I'm not an attorney either and could easily be wrong. Just repeating what I saw some people on Reddit who claimed to have some knowledge of the law were saying about it.

According to them, it's very difficult to legally enforce liquidated damages as a penalty for breaking a contract. Legally, they're meant to penalize a contract breaker for fiscal damage done to the contractor.

Of course I encourage anybody who knows better to point out if this is wrong. But if it's true, it just sounds to me like Shoop has a good agent/lawyer who will be able to get that 890K significantly reduced because someone at PSU didn't do a great job triple checking the language of the contract.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#91
#91
Coaching buyouts are always written as liquidated damages clauses. They've been enforced and executed for decades. I would be surprised if Shoop's attorneys are the first in history to figure out that these clauses are not, in fact, enforceable.

Again, my assumption is that Shoop is posturing in order to settle for a lesser amount. And I'm sure both sides will reach an agreement.
 
#93
#93
bamawriter said:
Coaching buyouts are always written as liquidated damages clauses. They've been enforced and executed for decades. I would be surprised if Shoop's attorneys are the first in history to figure out that these clauses are not, in fact, enforceable.

Again, my assumption is that Shoop is posturing in order to settle for a lesser amount. And I'm sure both sides will reach an agreement.
Click to expand...

How humiliating that a bama fan makes the most reasonable post on this thread.
 
#94
#94
Just go ahead and tell him how awesome he is.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement



Back
Top