Started By
Message
re: Altering a contract without a signature
Posted on 12/18/15 at 1:48 pm to BamaGradinTn
Posted on 12/18/15 at 1:48 pm to BamaGradinTn
Yeah those two situations are analogous.
Thanks for the balanced view you shared with us today.
Thanks for the balanced view you shared with us today.
1
Posted on 12/18/15 at 1:57 pm to Lou Pai
quote:
Yeah those two situations are analogous.
Well, yeah...except for the fact that in in one situation all three parties were up front with each other and acted with professionalism, while in the other session you have an AD run by the village idiots.
Posted on 12/18/15 at 1:59 pm to Adam Banks
quote:
Adam Banks
Quit melting bitch. Just because Chavis' lawyer says something doesn't mean it's true. LSU is whipping that Chavis arse in this suit. Just wait.
Posted on 12/18/15 at 2:00 pm to LSUTigersVCURams
I happen to think both sides are right. Chavis is dishonest and sleazy. LSU's athletic department is disorganized and incompetent. They're both true. There's no winners here
Posted on 12/18/15 at 2:00 pm to BrerTiger
quote:
It's highly unlikely the judge will void the amended contract.
He's going to take into account what alterations were made and why. He's going to take into account all the subsequent actions of both parties, including the 2013 extension.
If Chavis had up and quit in 2012 the minute he found out about the alteration, that would be one thing. At that very moment, that was the strongest case possible for having the contract voided.
Listen to this guy. He is smart.
Posted on 12/18/15 at 2:03 pm to LSUTigersVCURams
quote:
LSU is whipping that Chavis arse in this suit. Just wait.
How would you define that? As LSU winning 100% and Chavis has to pay all the buyout?
I want some of you numnuts to stop speaking in generalities so I can rub it all in your face when it gets settled for a fraction of the buyout amount. If you really still believe LSU will outright win put your name next to it.
Posted on 12/18/15 at 2:05 pm to genro
quote:
I happen to think both sides are right. Chavis is dishonest and sleazy. LSU's athletic department is disorganized and incompetent. They're both true. There's no winners here
No disagreements on any of that from me. But the idea Chavis's lawyer is putting out there that LSU literally whited out the terms of the original contract and added new ones that were more favorable to LSU is not only a complete lie, but it's absurd. It's funny so many LSU fans are falling for it.
Posted on 12/18/15 at 2:07 pm to cardboardboxer
quote:
LSU winning 100% and Chavis has to pay all the buyout
That is 100% correct. LSU is going to outright win. If I'm wrong, I'll eat my crow. But legally, Chavis doesn't have a leg to stand on. If he did, this case would have been tried in Texas, and Jill Craft wouldn't be pulling this elementary school level white out shite out of her arse.
Posted on 12/18/15 at 2:08 pm to LSUTigersVCURams
quote:
That is 100% correct. LSU is going to outright win.
I applaud your courage.
Posted on 12/18/15 at 2:11 pm to LSUTigersVCURams
quote:
But the idea Chavis's lawyer is putting out there that LSU literally whited out the terms of the original contract and added new ones that were more favorable to LSU is not only a complete lie, but it's absurd.
Um, the LSU side admitted that the contract was changed after it was signed.
Maybe that doesn't matter to the case, maybe he should have caught it back then, maybe the terms didn't change by much. That doesn't change the fact that someone in the LSU AD is incompetent, which is going to greatly reduce the judge's sympathy at the end of it when he has to decide how big is pox is on each house.
Posted on 12/18/15 at 2:13 pm to Adam Banks
Like I said when this issue first came up after he left, LSU should have dropped this and moved on. 500k is chump change for a place like LSU and it will cost them way more than that the next time their athletic department is trying to attract top coaching talent. Very high in demand coaches don't like coming to places where they think they will be sued if they ever want to leave, especially over vague contract terms. That was the damage LSU had already done to its reputation. Now LSU looks like outright fraudsters who will alter your contract after you sign it just to prove a point. Oh, and they will also search for your replacement before they even fire you and embarrass you in a very public way.
Good luck finding a HC next year.
Good luck finding a HC next year.
Posted on 12/18/15 at 2:15 pm to cardboardboxer
quote:
maybe he should have caught it back then
Has it been established when exactly Chavis became aware of the alteration of the buyout clause?
This post was edited on 12/18/15 at 2:16 pm
Posted on 12/18/15 at 2:15 pm to RB10
quote:
Do you fall back to the original in that case?
I am no lawyer, but have watched some court TV lol. It seems that a "loophole" or a "technicality" gets some criminals out of jail, or keeps them from going to jail.
These technicalities often void, and trump all other evidence pointing to the the guilt or innocence of defendants.
So, maybe if the contract is voided, Chavis doesn't pay a dime back.
Posted on 12/18/15 at 2:16 pm to cardboardboxer
Here is how it's going to play out. 1. Chavis is going to release his phone records (already happened); 2. The phone records will reveal he was negotiating his employment with aTm before the Music City Bowl, which 3. constitutes a breach of his contract with LSU, and 4. means Chavis is liable to LSU for the liquidated damages layed out in the contract.
Chavis will argue that the contract is invalid. LSU will say 1. no it isn't; 2. doesn't matter because the alteration took place in 2012 and the contract was modified with the consent of Chavis in 2013.
2013 agreement is legally binding. Chavis breached. Summary Judgment, LSU wins. aTm cuts a check to LSU.
Bookmark this post.
Chavis will argue that the contract is invalid. LSU will say 1. no it isn't; 2. doesn't matter because the alteration took place in 2012 and the contract was modified with the consent of Chavis in 2013.
2013 agreement is legally binding. Chavis breached. Summary Judgment, LSU wins. aTm cuts a check to LSU.
Bookmark this post.
This post was edited on 12/18/15 at 2:23 pm
Posted on 12/18/15 at 2:16 pm to BamaGradinTn
Interesting how you are comparing a lateral move to a divisional opponent (stemming from a contract dispute) while failing to fulfill the terms of his contract, to a coach taking a long anticipated promotion at his Alma Mater in another division.
Posted on 12/18/15 at 2:18 pm to genro
quote:
LSU's athletic department is disorganized and incompetent.
There's not really anything to support this claim that has come to light from this issue. As far as I know, LSU didn't enforce these adjusted terms. Also, my understanding is that they were ratified at a later date in a new contract.
Posted on 12/18/15 at 2:21 pm to BGSB
It won't be voided.
And a loophole in criminal law is a lot more valuable than a non-material alteration in civil law.
AS to who "wins" that simply depends on the perspective of the litigant. Sometimes a suit is just to make a statement, and even a marginal win, or loss, was worth it.
Also don't know if the contract says anything about fees. If one or the other party doesn't have to worry about paying the oppositions fees, it changes the complexion of the litigation.
And a loophole in criminal law is a lot more valuable than a non-material alteration in civil law.
AS to who "wins" that simply depends on the perspective of the litigant. Sometimes a suit is just to make a statement, and even a marginal win, or loss, was worth it.
Also don't know if the contract says anything about fees. If one or the other party doesn't have to worry about paying the oppositions fees, it changes the complexion of the litigation.
Posted on 12/18/15 at 2:24 pm to LSUTigersVCURams
quote:
Chavis will argue that the contract is invalid. LSU will say 1. no it isn't; 2. doesn't matter because the alteration took place in 2012 and the contract was modified with the consent of Chavis in 2013.
2013 agreement is legally binding. Chavis breached. Summary Judgment, LSU wins. aTm cuts a check to LSU.
Case settled long before that. Chavis sympathizers declare victory.
Posted on 12/18/15 at 2:25 pm to oman
Don't underestimate the pettiness on both sides.
Posted on 12/18/15 at 2:28 pm to oman
quote:
Case settled long before that. Chavis sympathizers declare victory.
Maybe, but I don't think so. These LSU lawyers are on salary and have got nothing but time.
Page 4 of 5
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News