Started By
Message
re: Ole Miss Isn't Breaking New Ground on Contract Enforcement
Posted on 7/15/26 at 12:23 pm to Insurancerebel
Posted on 7/15/26 at 12:23 pm to Insurancerebel
quote:
Article 2 governs sales of goods, and a revenue-sharing agreement doesn't appear to be a sale of goods.
Per my GC who's sitting right next to me and LOLing at this, it is.
quote:
If the contract includes an exit fee, buyout clause, or penalty for leaving the school or breaching the deal, it is evaluated under Mississippi liquidated damages principles. For the clause to be enforceable, the financial penalty must be a reasonable estimate of actual harm rather than an impermissible punitive fine.
1
Posted on 7/15/26 at 12:30 pm to billjamin
quote:
Per my GC who's sitting right next to me and LOLing at this, it is.
quote:
If the contract includes an exit fee, buyout clause, or penalty for leaving the school or breaching the deal, it is evaluated under Mississippi liquidated damages principles. For the clause to be enforceable, the financial penalty must be a reasonable estimate of actual harm rather than an impermissible punitive fine.
I'm confused. You originally said this would be tested under the Mississippi UCC. Your GC's explanation is about liquidated damages, which is a different issue. Which provision of the UCC are you saying governs this agreement?
Posted on 7/15/26 at 12:36 pm to Insurancerebel
quote:
I'm confused. You originally said this would be tested under the Mississippi UCC. Your GC's explanation is about liquidated damages, which is a different issue.
LDs are exactly whats in discussion and governed by UCC. This really isn't that complicated.
quote:
Which provision of the UCC are you saying governs this agreement?
75-2-718 governs the penalties
This is pretty cut and dry unless they want to go the 37-97-107 route, which would be even more hilarious.
Posted on 7/15/26 at 12:48 pm to Insurancerebel
quote:
And if the case is filed in Oxford—which is where I'd expect both the state and federal venue to be—Ole Miss gets the advantage of litigating in its home forum. The judges there have Ole Miss ties, and while they're obligated to be impartial, venue is still a strategic advantage in any lawsuit. If there are close questions about how existing contract principles apply to these new agreements, I'd much rather be Ole Miss than the defendant.
We get it, Ole Miss judges are crooked as can be.
Posted on 7/15/26 at 12:50 pm to SidewalkTiger
quote:
Ole Miss judges are crooked as can be.
They really wear that as a point of pride. It's bizarre.
Posted on 7/15/26 at 12:56 pm to billjamin
quote:
quote:
I'm confused. You originally said this would be tested under the Mississippi UCC. Your GC's explanation is about liquidated damages, which is a different issue.
LDs are exactly whats in discussion and governed by UCC. This really isn't that complicated.
quote:
Which provision of the UCC are you saying governs this agreement?
75-2-718 governs the penalties
This is pretty cut and dry unless they want to go the 37-97-107 route, which would be even more hilarious.
That's a pretty ambitious leap. You cited § 75-2-718, but you seem to have skipped § 75-2-102, which defines the scope of Article 2. It expressly provides that Article 2 applies to transactions in goods.
Before you ever get to Article 2's liquidated damages provision, you first have to establish why the agreement being discussed is governed by Article 2 in the first place. Simply because a contract contains a liquidated damages or buyout provision doesn't automatically make it a UCC contract.
Then you pivot to § 37-97-107, which is part of Mississippi's Intercollegiate Athletics Compensation and Publicity Rights Act. Fine—but that's a completely different statutory framework. More importantly, how do you get from a UCC argument to a Title 37 athletics statute without first explaining why either one governs this particular agreement?
Posted on 7/15/26 at 1:00 pm to billjamin
quote:
They really wear that as a point of pride. It's bizarre.
FWIW, I think this buyout eventually gets paid and it's probably just Kiffin trolling Ole Miss to some extent.
Carter crying to the media is exactly what Lane would want, if that's the case.
Posted on 7/15/26 at 1:08 pm to SidewalkTiger
quote:
FWIW, I think this buyout eventually gets paid and it's probably just Kiffin trolling Ole Miss to some extent.
I do too. It would be hilarious to watch them melt when they have to justify the damages. We would get months of LOL quotes out of that.
quote:
Carter crying to the media is exactly what Lane would want, if that's the case.
You really see where the fan base gets their meltyness from.
@insurance i have some meetings but i'll respond to your other post a little later.
Page 3 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News