I am Sure that there is a Lawsuit awaiting the Lame Cat in the Future

#1
Sudden Impact

Sudden Impact

Who we are is what We do with what We have!
Joined
Jan 7, 2007
Messages
14,389
Likes
7,833
#1
Legal Brains put you minds together.

College Football = Revenue

Timing and Intent of Lame's move

Affects on business and organization.

The Departure was legal but his actions and intent after the moves are liable acts.

Will his actions affect the revenue generated from our Football team and will it affect the product we put on the field next year and several to come.

Are there damages?
 
#3
#3
Sudden Impact said:
Legal Brains put you minds together.

College Football = Revenue

Timing and Intent of Lame's move

Affects on business and organization.

The Departure was legal but his actions and intent after the moves are liable acts.

Will his actions affect the revenue generated from our Football team and will it affect the product we put on the field next year and several to come.

Are there damages?
Click to expand...

Damages? Ego damages for sure, as well as wounded pride.
 
#5
#5
Drop it. You guys are sounding like middle schools guys dropped by the current Ms. Hot Lips.
 
#6
#6
First, as a UT fan, I would be embarassed if any lawsuit ever came of this. It would give the former coach in question just what he wants, more press and another excuse for ESPN (and others) to ridicule the program and the university. Second, if UT has to go through another coaching search in the future, do you really think any respectable coach in their right mind would take the job knowing he could possibly be sued if he left??
 
#7
#7
NCAA violations and nothing more. And thanks, OP, for posting the 20 millionth pointless thread about Kiffy.
 
#8
#8
Let it go. I hope USC is hit by every NCAA violation possible but as far as Lane and Tennessee goes, Let it go.
 
#13
#13
The only way I could possibly see a lawsuit (and it would be a long-shot at best), would be breach of contract by the staff if they could prove that Kiffin/Orgeron were contacting recruits for USC while they were still employed by UT.

However, the PR damage that would come of this would probably offset any monetary gain the university could get from it.
 
#14
#14
Sudden Impact said:
Legal Brains put you minds together.

College Football = Revenue

Timing and Intent of Lame's move

Affects on business and organization.

The Departure was legal but his actions and intent after the moves are liable acts.

Will his actions affect the revenue generated from our Football team and will it affect the product we put on the field next year and several to come.

Are there damages?
Click to expand...

None of these can/will amount to a lawsuit. Everything X did was a not a violation of his contract. However, I bet Hammy negotiates some different clauses for CDD's contract. :)
NCAA violations is about the best you can hope for.
 
#16
#16
OK, I have kept my mouth shut up until now. I despise the way this has been handled as much as anyone. But, lets take the high road. Let it go - including all the coaches who want to go. No coach is bigger or more important than Tennessee or Tennessee's fan base. He and his followers will get theirs without any help from us.
 
#17
#17
College coaches contracts are worthless. (say that 3 times in a row) He could leave whenever he wanted to as long as he paid the $800,000.
 
#18
#18
Sudden Impact said:
Legal Brains put you minds together.

College Football = Revenue

Timing and Intent of Lame's move

Affects on business and organization.

The Departure was legal but his actions and intent after the moves are liable acts.

Will his actions affect the revenue generated from our Football team and will it affect the product we put on the field next year and several to come.

Are there damages?
Click to expand...

He didn't contract guaranteeing revenue and he isn't solely responsible for revenue anyway. There's no liability here for anything.

Beyond that, let's just let this go. Don't even waste your time thinking of stuff like this.
 
#19
#19
no he would not be held liable...

yes, he was the breaching party and under contract law would be held to damages which include only restitution, expectation, and reliance.

reliance damages are to repay the non-breaching party for any cost incurred in preparation towards completing their half of the bargain, because UT has not made any specefic monetary steps in providing Kiffin his job as opposed to any steps that would be required given any other coach this seems an unlikely avenue

expectation damages are to compesate the non-breaching party for any loss of expected profits caused by non-preformance of the contract. Because it is not provable the exact amount UT will lose (or possibly gain) from the contract being breached, expectation damages cannot be awarded. This is beacause of the fickle nature of athletics for profit endeavors that arise from the entertainment industry as a whole (which UT football is). See Kenford Co., Inc. v. County of Eire, 493 N.E.2d 234 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986) (a perfect example of not being able to attach a specefic value to the expectation of profits and therefore cannot be awarded due to the breach of contract to build a new stadium). If UT were able to say they would have made an exact dollar amount from Kiffin not breaching down to the penny then they would be able to sue under this theory but as it stands now, UT is unable to recover.

Restitution damages are any damages that UT has paid to Kiffin towards their part of the contract that Kiffin would have failed to preform. These could include any salary paid for time after he left, not including any bonuses. Ut would be able to recover any salary they had paid him towards the future years in his contract.

The last would be liquidated damages that UT has already built into his contract commonly called a "buy-out" which UT has already or will receive.

So no, other than the buy-out already in his contract, UT would not be able to claim any damages from Kiffin's breach of contract under any theory of contract law.
 
#20
#20
UtennfaninVa said:
no he would not be held liable...

yes, he was the breaching party and under contract law would be held to damages which include only restitution, expectation, and reliance.

reliance damages are to repay the non-breaching party for any cost incurred in preparation towards completing their half of the bargain, because UT has not made any specefic monetary steps in providing Kiffin his job as opposed to any steps that would be required given any other coach this seems an unlikely avenue

expectation damages are to compesate the non-breaching party for any loss of expected profits caused by non-preformance of the contract. Because it is not provable the exact amount UT will lose (or possibly gain) from the contract being breached, expectation damages cannot be awarded. This is beacause of the fickle nature of athletics for profit endeavors that arise from the entertainment industry as a whole (which UT football is). See Kenford Co., Inc. v. County of Eire, 493 N.E.2d 234 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986) (a perfect example of not being able to attach a specefic value to the expectation of profits and therefore cannot be awarded due to the breach of contract to build a new stadium). If UT were able to say they would have made an exact dollar amount from Kiffin not breaching down to the penny then they would be able to sue under this theory but as it stands now, UT is unable to recover.

Restitution damages are any damages that UT has paid to Kiffin towards their part of the contract that Kiffin would have failed to preform. These could include any salary paid for time after he left, not including any bonuses. Ut would be able to recover any salary they had paid him towards the future years in his contract.

The last would be liquidated damages that UT has already built into his contract commonly called a "buy-out" which UT has already or will receive.

So no, other than the buy-out already in his contract, UT would not be able to claim any damages from Kiffin's breach of contract under any theory of contract law.
Click to expand...

Outside of K law, tortious interference with economic expectancy based on CLK's and O's calling recruits to skip class would be a very weak argument too. I have no idea how to measure the damages and I doubt that a school would want to characterize a scholarship in this manner.
 
#22
#22
It is time to get over kiffin. We sound pathetic. Whats done is done and the rest of the country is making fun of us.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#23
#23
Kiffin's got millions from his raiders job, UT job, etc. He paid the $800,000 out of loose change on his dresser.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top