New Perspective on Schiano's MOU

#176
#176
txbo said:
I’m not following you. While naming TN as jurisdiction, UT system is throughout the state. I think that makes it possible to file from Memphis to Mountain City.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, I thought you meant that it would still be possible to file in Ohio.

Under the Heartland v. Kraft ruling, I wasn't sure if it was still possible, especially given language specifying Tennessee.

I see now you meant anywhere in Tennessee.
 
#177
#177
New Perspective on Schiano's MOU
I was lambasted for suggesting we might end up paying Schiano 4 to 5 million of his 27 million dollar contract for breaking the MOU. Just now Hyams agreed it will likely be in the millions with his co-host after talking to "lots of coaches" about the situation.

Here is an interesting new perspective. Schiano may hold all the cards. People on VN speculated that Schiano wouldn't want to go to court. Hyams, on the other hand, thinks he WILL want to go to court to clear his name. It's an opportunity for him to show he has nothing to hide. Conversely, Hyams thinks Tennessee won't want to go to court and will try to settle. UT administrators will be asked pointed questions under oath about the role of boosters in the coaching search, something UT has tried very hard to keep quiet. The Schiano court case may end up revealing many of the details of this saga, unless Tennessee settles.





I want to go into further detail on the above.

Hyams thinks Schiano holds all the cards. Consider that the MOU was never "EXECUTED." Now, if not executed, THEN IT IS NOT ENFORCEABLE IS IT?

If Schiano tries to shake Tenn. down with the threat of a damaging public lawsuit, then let him have at it!

LISTEN: If that MOU was not signed on all signature lines, then it was not EXECUTED-- thus unenforceable!

Hyams wants to jump way ahead and talk about depositions in which he says Schiano will want to give in the hopes he can clear the air and restore his good name.

If you have ever been a party to a federal law suit, then you must know the wheels grind slowly. This ain't the Florida presidential election between Bush and Gore that breezed through the District Court, and then the Circuit Court of Appeals and then on to the the United States Supreme Court in a few days or couple of weeks.

Not hardly. This will move slowly and there will be Motions to Dismiss which will have to be heard and decided. Then there will be Motions for Summary Judgment which will have to be heard and decided.

It will not be until all of these preliminary actions which take months and months to decide, that the Court, if so inclined will allow the parties to even begin the discovery process. Then there will be problems with what the parties want to talk about and the judge will have to get further involved and tell them how to act.

If that MOU was never signed by all the parties listed on its three or four pages, I don't see how it can survive the initial motion to dismiss. Clearly, without being fully EXECUTED, it simply would not be enforceable!

But it's the liability insurance companies call and they have lawyers on staff who would love to get in the spotlight on this one.

I think it will be a slam dunk for the insurance companies lawyers!
 
#178
#178
TN_Transplant said:
I'm sorry, I thought you meant that it would still be possible to file in Ohio.

Under the Heartland v. Kraft ruling, I wasn't sure if it was still possible, especially given language specifying Tennessee.

I see now you meant anywhere in Tennessee.
Click to expand...

Gotcha.

If I were Schiano, I’d file suit it Ohio, when UT aurgued the MOA binds jurisdictional authority to TN, game over. They just argued the MOA is executed and binding.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#179
#179
I agree. The first and last paragraph are important. UT will argue all signatures are required for it to be fully executed. Schiano will argue it was fully executed with the assumed authority of Currie.



Then why was it even reduced to the written word?

And why did those written words include FULLY EXECUTED?
 
#180
#180
ru4real-really? said:
I agree. The first and last paragraph are important. UT will argue all signatures are required for it to be fully executed. Schiano will argue it was fully executed with the assumed authority of Currie.



Then why was it even reduced to the written word?

And why did those written words include FULLY EXECUTED?
Click to expand...

It comes down to what is accepted as fully executed.
 
#181
#181
lawyers want to make a case when there is no case there. That's how they make a living!

For me, I choose to be on the side of the clearly written words in a contract!
 
#183
#183
Quote:

It comes down to what is accepted as fully executed.



Play Judge--what would you accept as fully executed?

you think maybe all parties signed off on it!
 
#184
#184
txbo said:
Gotcha.

If I were Schiano, I’d file suit it Ohio, when UT aurgued the MOA binds jurisdictional authority to TN, game over. They just argued the MOA is executed and binding.
Click to expand...

I would actually not argue it that way, but that as the defendant, the venue should be where I do business. Again, I'd fall back on the Heartland v. Kraft ruling.
 
#186
#186
TN_Transplant said:
I would actually not argue it that way, but that as the defendant, the venue should be where I do business. Again, I'd fall back on the Heartland v. Kraft ruling.
Click to expand...

I’d argue that you brought the MOU to Ohio so you did business in Ohio.
 
#187
#187
txbo said:
I’d argue that you brought the MOU to Ohio so you did business in Ohio.
Click to expand...

Ah, yes, but that was decided already. I have to have an actual place of business there, not just salesmen or employees.

So, regardless of where one person signed, the University only has locations in the State of Tennessee. That determines venue of Tennessee or it's Federal District.
 
#188
#188
Nothing here for us. This is a thread for lawyers...pretend or otherwise :) Putting thread on ignore. :wavey:
 
#189
#189
TN_Transplant said:
Ah, yes, but that was decided already. I have to have an actual place of business there, not just salesmen or employees.

So, regardless of where one person signed, the University only has locations in the State of Tennessee. That determines venue of Tennessee or it's Federal District.
Click to expand...

That hasn’t been my experience with employee contracts.
Absent legal jurisdiction in a employee contract.
 
#190
#190
butchna said:
Nothing here for us. This is a thread for lawyers...pretend or otherwise :) Putting thread on ignore. :wavey:
Click to expand...

I'm not a lawyer, never said I was. But have been heavily involved in mergers, acquisitions, and breach of contract suits.

I'm an IT guy by original trade, been in management for about 20 years now.
 
#191
#191
txbo said:
That hasn’t been my experience with employee contracts.
Absent legal jurisdiction in a employee contract.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it's more business suits, and new laws and rulings geared at stopping court shopping have recently changed how easy it is to establish venue.

Thank patent trolls always going to East Texas.
 
#193
#193
TN_Transplant said:
Yeah, it's more business suits, and new laws and rulings geared at stopping court shopping have recently changed how easy it is to establish venue.

Thank patent trolls always going to East Texas.
Click to expand...

I’ve had legal counsel that insisted that key employees in other state visit home office at least one a year to ensure that home jurisdiction could be established and maintained. I’ve lost cases were jurisdiction was established in a contract but the employee had never been in that jurisdiction.
 
Last edited:
#194
#194
txbo said:
I’ve had legal counsel that insisted that key employees in other state visit home office at least one a year to ensure that home jurisdiction could be established and maintained. I’ve lost cases were jurisdiction was established in a contract but the employee had never been in that jurisdiction.
Click to expand...

I think you'll find that may get a little tougher to do now.
 
#195
#195
vols1707 said:
He deserves some $$$

How much idk

Smells of a settlement out of court.

The character assassination done on him by uninformed Tennessee fans and State officials was pretty bad.....
Click to expand...


and Mrs. Schiano continues to come here and defend her husband...
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#196
#196
njvols said:
Yep, actions which show acceptance by both parties can be interpreted as agreed upon contract, regardless of final final MOU, especially if standard practice that MOUs some times aren't finalized until after announcements. At minimum there's probably a penalty for cancellation.
Click to expand...

We have a winner. Never post, just come here for news.
However, I was able to stumble through law school. It will not be a tort claim , it will be determined by contract law. The Ped State issues would only come up if argued as a misrepresentation or if it could impact performance. But UT said they vetted Schiano and what info did he intentionally withhold? The issues raised will be Offer by a qualified agent-representative (AD should qualify), acceptance, meeting of the minds, consideration, performance and preventing performance. Don't know enough specifics to have an opinion on outcome, or even if worth pursuing for Schiano..... but it is not clear cut just because a chancellor's signature is missing.

UT sent Currie out to find a coach, it may be difficult to argue he did not have authority to bind them to an agreement. TN civil procedure will define the remedy, if determined a "contract". With the amount of buyout $ being paid, the results of this may be insignificant. However, it is an interesting study and could have legs.

Might be more sensation than dollars, and how motivated is Schiano? He would not respond to questions asked after the Big 10 championship, just redirected back to the game and players. Not that I think or know if he is part of that stain, but how does continued press help his career.

This is sad/unfortunate collateral damage that may have a short term cost. Who is going to be the ****coach seems far more important and interesting.

Back to lurking:victory:
 
#197
#197
TN_Transplant said:
I think you'll find that may get a little tougher to do now.
Click to expand...

I haven’t been given any guidance from counsel that would suggest the Heartland case would change anything for me. I don’t deal with patents and seldom end up in federal court. I don’t think a potential Schiano suit would either.
 
#198
#198
NorthDallas40 said:
Yeah after I posted the link I read it and didn’t see that either. It was posted last week that it said that and that is what I was referring to. I assume I got the right document?
Click to expand...

They were probably relying on the “fully executed” clause.
 
#199
#199
NorthDallas40 said:
Wonder if Davenport’s verbal “I give full authority to John Currie in this search...” or something similar that she publicly stated would be admissible? Again written vs verbal argument?
Click to expand...

she gave Currie authority to find and hire a coach. He was not given authority to draw up the contract and pay him.
 
#200
#200
Cmarti said:
We have a winner. Never post, just come here for news.
However, I was able to stumble through law school. It will not be a tort claim , it will be determined by contract law. The Ped State issues would only come up if argued as a misrepresentation or if it could impact performance. But UT said they vetted Schiano and what info did he intentionally withhold? The issues raised will be Offer by a qualified agent-representative (AD should qualify), acceptance, meeting of the minds, consideration, performance and preventing performance. Don't know enough specifics to have an opinion on outcome, or even if worth pursuing for Schiano..... but it is not clear cut just because a chancellor's signature is missing.

UT sent Currie out to find a coach, it may be difficult to argue he did not have authority to bind them to an agreement. TN civil procedure will define the remedy, if determined a "contract". With the amount of buyout $ being paid, the results of this may be insignificant. However, it is an interesting study and could have legs.

Might be more sensation than dollars, and how motivated is Schiano? He would not respond to questions asked after the Big 10 championship, just redirected back to the game and players. Not that I think or know if he is part of that stain, but how does continued press help his career.

This is sad/unfortunate collateral damage that may have a short term cost. Who is going to be the ****coach seems far more important and interesting.

Back to lurking:victory:
Click to expand...



where is the consideration in a MOU that spells out what the parties will do in the future?

On the date it was offered by Currie, he included no advance payment to the other party--thus no consideration--an essential requirement in any contract!

A promise to pay in the future on a nonbinding nor executed contract is not consideration!
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement



Back
Top