Started By
Message
Altering a contract without a signature
Posted on 12/18/15 at 11:19 am
Posted on 12/18/15 at 11:19 am
I would like unbiased opinion because I feel like I'm taking crazy pills with our fanbase taking up for Joe alleva.
I believe it is incredibly irresponsible to change a contract even if it's correcting a typo from teh to the without getting the other party to sign.
I know that there are those who hate LSU and will go against the side LSU is on regardless just to troll Us but remember if you are against LSU then you're with Aggie so take that in mind. but I think chavis is right here
I believe it is incredibly irresponsible to change a contract even if it's correcting a typo from teh to the without getting the other party to sign.
I know that there are those who hate LSU and will go against the side LSU is on regardless just to troll Us but remember if you are against LSU then you're with Aggie so take that in mind. but I think chavis is right here
15
Posted on 12/18/15 at 11:22 am to Adam Banks
I'm not sure what was specifically altered, but altering anything leads me to believe that Chavis was told one thing, read the original copy, and then they changed something after the initial discussions. does not seem right to me. I'm not for the phaggies
Posted on 12/18/15 at 11:22 am to Adam Banks
quote:
I believe it is incredibly irresponsible to change a contract even if it's correcting a typo from teh to the without getting the other party to sign.
pretty much, you usually have them at least initial the change to show they are aware of it
Posted on 12/18/15 at 11:23 am to Adam Banks
quote:
Adam Banks
Cake Eater is right u don't alter a contract in anyway without both sides consent.
Posted on 12/18/15 at 11:23 am to Adam Banks
quote:You are correct.
I believe it is incredibly irresponsible to change a contract even if it's correcting a typo from teh to the without getting the other party to sign.
Posted on 12/18/15 at 11:24 am to Adam Banks
I don't see how it's possible to alter the contract without a signature. That pretty much voids the contract completely.
....but then again....We are talking about people in Louisiana so they probably can't read past a "Where's Waldo" level.
....but then again....We are talking about people in Louisiana so they probably can't read past a "Where's Waldo" level.
Posted on 12/18/15 at 11:25 am to Adam Banks
quote:
I believe it is incredibly irresponsible to change a contract even if it's correcting a typo from teh to the without getting the other party to sign.
It's not "irresponsible" It's called fraud.
If it can be proven that the schools attorney knew about it and approved of it, he could likely be disbarred.
Posted on 12/18/15 at 11:27 am to bbvdd
quote:
It's not "irresponsible" It's called fraud.
Actually, it isn't. It wasn't done without knowledge, and the only change that was substantive actually benefited Chavis, so it wasn't done to seek an unjust advantage. I love when the SECr's legal eagles come out.
Posted on 12/18/15 at 11:27 am to Adam Banks
If it was a true mistake and/or there was no harm in the change then it's OK in my book. BUT, that doesn't seem to be the case here does it? It sounds almost criminal to me. I'm glad they admitted it but dayum.
Posted on 12/18/15 at 11:29 am to pankReb
Jesus fricking Christ.
I've somebody's kid draws a smiley face on a contract, it's altered, so to start off, if an alteration has no effect on a contract, there is no legal effect one way or another.
In what limited info we have, it appears that someone tried to alter the arguably vague 24-36 months to be a more precise "1st day of the 24th month and last day of the 36th month". Pretty smart to think of that issue, pretty dumb not to simply call the other side an get them to agree to the alteration/amendment in writing.
If the alteration negatively affects the non-altering party, that's a problem. If it has no effect or actually (and it looks like in this case it may) positively affects the non-altering party, there is no issue.
What this appears to be is an attorney justifying her worth by making an argument that might score a credibility point but has no legal weight.
Although judging by these boards, it has some emotional weight.
I've somebody's kid draws a smiley face on a contract, it's altered, so to start off, if an alteration has no effect on a contract, there is no legal effect one way or another.
In what limited info we have, it appears that someone tried to alter the arguably vague 24-36 months to be a more precise "1st day of the 24th month and last day of the 36th month". Pretty smart to think of that issue, pretty dumb not to simply call the other side an get them to agree to the alteration/amendment in writing.
If the alteration negatively affects the non-altering party, that's a problem. If it has no effect or actually (and it looks like in this case it may) positively affects the non-altering party, there is no issue.
What this appears to be is an attorney justifying her worth by making an argument that might score a credibility point but has no legal weight.
Although judging by these boards, it has some emotional weight.
Posted on 12/18/15 at 11:29 am to tilco
quote:
Adam Banks
quote:
Cake Eater
Mighty Ducks reference? Have an upvote.
Posted on 12/18/15 at 11:30 am to therick711
quote:
quote: It's not "irresponsible" It's called fraud. Actually, it isn't. It wasn't done without knowledge, and the only change that was substantive actually benefited Chavis, so it wasn't done to seek an unjust advantage. I love when the SECr's legal eagles come out.
I mean seriously? "It's ok guys it benefitted chavis?" This is a multimillion dollar contract. Don't leave anything to chance walk it across the street and get him to sign it
Posted on 12/18/15 at 11:31 am to bama1959
quote:
If it was a true mistake and/or there was no harm in the change then it's OK in my book. BUT, that doesn't seem to be the case here does it? It sounds almost criminal to me.
Got a link to this "sound"? All I've heard is it was a clarification of the term, which ultimately didn't change the contract at all. I'd like to see Alleva gone so if you've got some information that would help that I'd love to see it.
Posted on 12/18/15 at 11:32 am to presidenthog
LSU was within their rights to change the President name from Lombardi to Jenkins.
And if the date information did not change the terms they were probably OK with that as well.
Any changes though, should have been given to Chavis and his representatives to have him sign again.
The name change is irrelevant.
The dates appear confusing to me and I would at least want to read it to make sure nothing was altered.
My guess is Chavis had to have been given a copy of the revised one and if he never objected it should still be valid.
And if the date information did not change the terms they were probably OK with that as well.
Any changes though, should have been given to Chavis and his representatives to have him sign again.
The name change is irrelevant.
The dates appear confusing to me and I would at least want to read it to make sure nothing was altered.
My guess is Chavis had to have been given a copy of the revised one and if he never objected it should still be valid.
Posted on 12/18/15 at 11:32 am to therick711
quote:Are you saying Chavis was informed and agreed to it?
It wasn't done without knowledge
Wouldn't he beg to differ? Why else is this an issue?
This is just he-said she-said. How would you know?
Posted on 12/18/15 at 11:33 am to presidenthog
The 3 things that were changed in the contract:
1. John Lombardi's name was removed when he was fired from his position as university president and Mark Ewing added William Jenkins' name, who replaced Lombardi on an interim basis.
2. Ewing changed the language regarding the buyout dates from “between 24 months to 36 months” to “between the first day of the 36th month remaining to the last day of the 24th month remaining.”
3. He also changed language in the buyout dates from “between 11 months and 23 months” to “between the first day of the 23rd month remaining to the last day of the 12th month.”
1. John Lombardi's name was removed when he was fired from his position as university president and Mark Ewing added William Jenkins' name, who replaced Lombardi on an interim basis.
2. Ewing changed the language regarding the buyout dates from “between 24 months to 36 months” to “between the first day of the 36th month remaining to the last day of the 24th month remaining.”
3. He also changed language in the buyout dates from “between 11 months and 23 months” to “between the first day of the 23rd month remaining to the last day of the 12th month.”
Posted on 12/18/15 at 11:33 am to Adam Banks
quote:
I mean seriously? "It's ok guys it benefitted chavis?" This is a multimillion dollar contract. Don't leave anything to chance walk it across the street and get him to sign it
Fraud requires an intent to obtain an unjust advantage. Without that, it isn't fraud. I'm simply answering stupidity with what the actual state of affairs is.
Posted on 12/18/15 at 11:34 am to Adam Banks
I honestly can't see how anyone can defend that aspect. Regardless of other parts of the case, altering a contract after the fact is highly unethical and incredibly stupid.
Posted on 12/18/15 at 11:35 am to therick711
Where's the Ole Miss law grad when you need him?
Posted on 12/18/15 at 11:36 am to Prof
quote:
I honestly can't see how anyone can defend that aspect. Regardless of other parts of the case, altering a contract after the fact is highly unethical and incredibly stupid.
yup, it's idiotic really.
i'm still amused by the lsu lawyer saying it was innocent, immaterial and unintentional. ummkay, i accidentally changed this contract because we only had a hard copy and my dog ate it and i couldn't remember the exact wording.
Page 1 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News