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.

2 ...

Report Post

Posted by BrerTiger

Valley of the Long Grey Cloud

Member since Sep 2011

21506 posts

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

0 ...

Report Post

Posted by LSUTigersVCURams

Member since Jul 2014

21940 posts

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.

This post was edited on 12/18/15 at 2:23 pm

2 ...

Report Post

SEC Rant - Replies to Post

Return To Board

Page 1

Return To Board