Started By
Message
re: Altering a contract without a signature
Posted on 12/18/15 at 11:36 am to genro
Posted on 12/18/15 at 11:36 am to genro
quote:
quote: It wasn't done without knowledge Are you saying Chavis was informed and agreed to it? Wouldn't he beg to differ? Why else is this an issue? This is just he-said she-said. How would you know?
Exactly. In my line of work documentation is of massive importance. If it's not documented then it wasn't done. The only way to document that chavis knew the change is to get him to sign it. The guy is (at the time) across the street on a daily basis from the athletic department. Walk across the street and get him to sign.
1
Posted on 12/18/15 at 11:37 am to genro
quote:
Are you saying Chavis was informed and agreed to it?
Wouldn't he beg to differ? Why else is this an issue?
This is just he-said she-said. How would you know?
I'm saying that it would be a hard argument to make that he never saw his approved contract from the BoS. It is an issue because Jill wants to void the entire contract because she's dead to rights on the buyout issue. The final thing is the alteration didn't change the contract. Under Louisiana law, the buyout would have been interpreted under the original language the same way it would be interpreted under the modified language. Also, I think Barton's statement that it was ratified by the MoU the next year is persuasive in that Chavis knew. I'm going only on what is public record at this time, though. You are right to point out that if other things come to light the analysis could change.
Posted on 12/18/15 at 11:38 am to Adam Banks
quote:
Exactly. In my line of work documentation is of massive importance. If it's not documented then it wasn't done. The only way to document that chavis knew the change is to get him to sign it. The guy is (at the time) across the street on a daily basis from the athletic department. Walk across the street and get him to sign.
The problem is you're wrong. He could ratify under the law. He could do so tacitly or expressly. You might need to get smarter on ratification if documentation is so integral to what you do.
Posted on 12/18/15 at 11:41 am to therick711
quote:It would be a hard argument to prove he did, if there's no initialing, or minutes of a meeting, or something . That's on LSU for not covering those very bases.
I'm saying that it would be a hard argument to make that he never saw his approved contract from the BoS.
Posted on 12/18/15 at 11:41 am to piggilicious
I'm really enjoying the rabble getting worked up over this like it's a big deal. It's clear how few people read the article and even fewer seem to comprehend the inconsequential changes that were made.
Posted on 12/18/15 at 11:41 am to therick711
quote:
The problem is you're wrong. He could ratify under the law. He could do so tacitly or expressly. You might need to get smarter on ratification if documentation is so integral to what you do.
You have no idea what I do. It is not law. Maybe I'm just a simple man who uses common sense but sending an aide across the street is a lot easier and a lot cheaper then going to court.
Posted on 12/18/15 at 11:42 am to genro
quote:
It would be a hard argument to prove he did, if there's no initialing, or minutes of a meeting, or something . That's on LSU for not covering those very bases.
I'll be surprised if this has any effect on the proceedings. Jill Craft is facing an uphill battle to annul the contract on this basis. That's all I'm saying. Stay tuned.
Posted on 12/18/15 at 11:44 am to piggilicious
quote:
i'm still amused by the lsu lawyer saying it was innocent, immaterial and unintentional
The "innocent" part was certainly amusing.
If Chavis had brought his lawsuit in 2012 and used it as justification to bolt for greener pastures *then*, I guess he would have had a slam dunk case.
When exactly did Chavis first become aware of the alteration? Was it before or after he agreed to extend his contract again?
Judge might consider that ratifying the alteration after the fact.
And his actions in January (getting A&M to hire him as a consultant) certainly show that he was fully aware of the terms of the buyout clause.
I think both parties are at fault and the judge seems to be indicating so with what has been reported so far.
I expect both parties will be end up with a forced compromise, not too far off from what they should have settled out on their own.
And Alleva is most certainly to blame for this mess. It was reported that he skipped a sitdown meeting that Miles arranged between Alleva, Miles and Chavis. If Alleva hadn't pissed off Chavis so much (with things like the alteration), we probably wouldn't be here.
Posted on 12/18/15 at 11:44 am to therick711
quote:
I'll be surprised if this has any effect on the proceedings. Jill Craft is facing an uphill battle to annul the contract on this basis. That's all I'm saying. Stay tuned.
If the amended contract is voided, won't they just enforce the terms of the original? Which, in this case, are exactly the same as the amended.
Posted on 12/18/15 at 11:44 am to therick711
quote:
therick711
attorney?
Posted on 12/18/15 at 11:44 am to Adam Banks
quote:
You have no idea what I do. It is not law.
It doesn't matter what you do. If you don't know how a contract can be changed, that's a problem. Especially for someone that holds documentation as being so important. You're arguing whether it is smart to do what they did. I'm telling you what I think the effect of what actually happened is. I'm coming from it from a positive perspective. You're coming from a normative perspective.
Posted on 12/18/15 at 11:45 am to therick711
You would think that the minute these minor technical alterations were made, they'd at the very least shoot him an email with it attached. And you could produce that right away.
Posted on 12/18/15 at 11:47 am to genro
quote:
You would think that the minute these minor technical alterations were made, they'd at the very least shoot him an email with it attached. And you could produce that right away.
I don't think any of the evidence on this matter has been put on yet. To be honest, I'm not sure what they have in terms of documentation. If this matter doesn't settle, I'm sure we'll get to see everyone's cards. Or someone will make a public records request and hunt down most of what can be obtained.
Posted on 12/18/15 at 11:48 am to therick711
quote:
You have no idea what I do. It is not law. It doesn't matter what you do. If you don't know how a contract can be changed, that's a problem. Especially for someone that holds documentation as being so important. You're arguing whether it is smart to do what they did. I'm telling you what I think the effect of what actually happened is. I'm coming from it from a positive perspective. You're coming from a normative perspective.
So tell me oh scholar. Would it be wrong to get him to initial the changes? Then why would alleva risk anything by not having him sign off? That prevents any he said she said.
I would bet money the coaches are having to initial a lot of contracts today.
Posted on 12/18/15 at 11:49 am to RB10
Well if that's the case I'm sure charisma signed and initialed with dates and had it notarized....
Oh no?! Then it is fraud.
I'd doesn't matter how insignificant you think it is the contract was altered and he did not consent to it by signing.
Lsu fricked up and the AD and lawyer responsible are in trouble. I can't believe they are pushing this. I mean the case is being heard in Louisianna but there's no way they can squirm out of this.
This is a huge black eye.
Oh no?! Then it is fraud.
I'd doesn't matter how insignificant you think it is the contract was altered and he did not consent to it by signing.
Lsu fricked up and the AD and lawyer responsible are in trouble. I can't believe they are pushing this. I mean the case is being heard in Louisianna but there's no way they can squirm out of this.
This is a huge black eye.
Posted on 12/18/15 at 11:50 am to Adam Banks
I'm guessing the positive vs. normative thing didn't answer this question for you. 
Why do you keep saying Alleva. This contract has nothing to do with Alleva. It was negotiated directly with Lombardi and approved by the BoS. Again, normative vs. positive. I'm sorry you're contemptuous of knowledge. I'm just trying to help you out.
Why do you keep saying Alleva. This contract has nothing to do with Alleva. It was negotiated directly with Lombardi and approved by the BoS. Again, normative vs. positive. I'm sorry you're contemptuous of knowledge. I'm just trying to help you out. This post was edited on 12/18/15 at 11:54 am
Posted on 12/18/15 at 11:50 am to therick711
We'll take cash. Thx
Posted on 12/18/15 at 11:51 am to HailFreezusOver
quote:
Well if that's the case I'm sure charisma signed and initialed with dates and had it notarized....
Oh no?! Then it is fraud.
I'd doesn't matter how insignificant you think it is the contract was altered and he did not consent to it by signing.
Lsu fricked up and the AD and lawyer responsible are in trouble. I can't believe they are pushing this. I mean the case is being heard in Louisianna but there's no way they can squirm out of this.
So the amended contract is voided then. The original is still upheld correct?
Posted on 12/18/15 at 11:51 am to therick711
quote:
The problem is you're wrong. He could ratify under the law. He could do so tacitly or expressly. You might need to get smarter on ratification if documentation is so integral to what you do
Yeah, LSU definitely has a strong case that Chavis ratified the alterations in 2013 by extending his contract. All his subsequent actions make it clear that Chavis was aware of the alteration for years and didn't make a legal issue out of it until he bolted.
I still think the judge is likely to grant Chavis some relief from the full weight of the buyout and force both sides to meet in the middle. But that's just me guessing.
In order for Chavis to get anything more, he's got to prove some malicious intent on the part of LSU. Otherwise, I think odds are very low he'll succeed in getting the contract declared void.
Posted on 12/18/15 at 11:51 am to Adam Banks
quote:
I would like unbiased opinion because I feel like I'm taking crazy pills with our fanbase taking up for Joe alleva.
How do you know this is Joe Alleva's fault?
Just a classic LSU fan jumping to conclusions again
Page 2 of 5
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News