Started By
Message
re: The Latest from Chris Low... interesting comments
Posted on 12/3/10 at 3:55 pm to arty
Posted on 12/3/10 at 3:55 pm to arty
The courts ruled OJ not guilty of murder but does anyone believe that, NO.
The NCAA rules Cam eligible to play, does anyone think its right, NO.
Don't say public opinion doesn't matter. People's lives and reputations have been ruined over public perception no matter what the truth may be.
The NCAA rules Cam eligible to play, does anyone think its right, NO.
Don't say public opinion doesn't matter. People's lives and reputations have been ruined over public perception no matter what the truth may be.
1
Posted on 12/3/10 at 3:57 pm to creolechef
quote:I didn't say public perception didn't matter, just that it didn't matter more than an NCAA ruling. To use your anology, the jury's decision mattered more to OJ than public perception. By the way, AU and Cam didn't murder two people with a knife, allegedly.
The courts ruled OJ not guilty of murder but does anyone believe that, NO.
The NCAA rules Cam eligible to play, does anyone think its right, NO.
Don't say public opinion doesn't matter. People's lives and reputations have been ruined over public perception no matter what the truth may be.
Posted on 12/3/10 at 4:20 pm to WDE24
The NCAA's ruling might matter more to Cam and Auburn fans, but think about how long OJ had to live almost in the shadows and could never escape the public perception of himself. OJ will never be able to shake that perception of himself and I think If Auburn wins the BCS then they will never be able to shake that perception either.
Posted on 12/3/10 at 5:22 pm to WDE24
quote:
Well, because it can be a convoluted point to try to explain on a message board. If you really care, look at a contract law texbook or look it up in Black's legal dictionary, which provides an example to make it more easily understood.
Again, no offense, but unilateral contract is not a good argument to the point you were making. Your laymen's definition of "agreement" is a fair argument, just not the only argument. Legally, Cecil's actions would not fit the definition of agreement. NCAA and SEC don't have to adhere to it, but since most of those decision makers are lawyers, my guess is they would find it persuasive.
I hear a lot of shite but no substance.
But just to humor you.
LINK
unilateral contract
n. an agreement to pay in exchange for performance, if the potential performer chooses to act. A "unilateral" contract is distinguished from a "bilateral" contract, which is an exchange of one promise for another. Example of a unilateral contract: "I will pay you $1,000 if you bring my car from Cleveland to San Francisco." Bringing the car is acceptance. The difference is normally only of academic interest.
LINK
unilateral contract
: a contract in which only one party is obligated to perform compare bilateral contract in this entry
LINK
Unilateral Contract
(n) A unilateral contract is an offer or promise by the person giving the offer or promise without a second party accepting it. The offeror is bound to abide by the promise even though there is no reciprocal acceptance. So in this contract only one person is responsible to full fill the conditions set in that contract. Unilateral contacts are made when there is no defined second party or it is offered to many at a time. For example offer to pay to the founder of goods.
Just admit your convoluted argument if full of crap.
Posted on 12/3/10 at 5:25 pm to arty
quote:Seriously? I took contract law at Bama (oh nose) from Gene Marsh himself (Bama's own former NCAA attorney). I know what a unilateral contract is. If you don't get it and want to make that argument, fine with me. But I am telling you, you don't understand what it is if you think the situation with Cecil was a unilateral contract. I am seriously not trying to offend you.
arty
Posted on 12/3/10 at 5:28 pm to WDE24
Oh boy. Gene Marsh. He did so well he cost Bama 25 scholarships.
I showed you mine you show me yours.
I showed you mine you show me yours.
Posted on 12/3/10 at 5:29 pm to beatbammer
I just don't understand why Low makes it an effort to point out that as of now, AU and Cam haven't done anything wrong, but then says this season will have an asterisk by it. Huh?
Sure, his dad did a shady thing, but there's no proof that he was involved in it AT AUBURN.
How can he say there will be an asterisk go with this season when it hasn't been proven that AU nor Cam did anything wrong?! Sorry, that just pisses me off.
Sure, his dad did a shady thing, but there's no proof that he was involved in it AT AUBURN.
How can he say there will be an asterisk go with this season when it hasn't been proven that AU nor Cam did anything wrong?! Sorry, that just pisses me off.
Posted on 12/3/10 at 5:29 pm to arty
quote:A unilateral contract requires the party to whom the contract was offered to accept by performing an act, see example and def. above. Nothing with Cecil fits this definition. This differs from a typical or bilateral contract in that it is not an exchange of promises that completes the contract and brings an obligation to both parties. Instead of exchanging promises/obligations, one party makes a promise/obligation and the other party accepts (thus creating a contract) by performing.
Example of a unilateral contract: "I will pay you $1,000 if you bring my car from Cleveland to San Francisco." Bringing the car is acceptance.
Posted on 12/3/10 at 5:31 pm to arty
well the act of driving the car shows acceptance...which is not the same as asking for money and not getting it.
Sorry i don't want to read all this bitching and moaning back and forth, so if i'm jumping in and just way off base with where i think this is at please feel free to disregard and go back to your "auburn cheats burn them...burn them now" crusade.
Sorry i don't want to read all this bitching and moaning back and forth, so if i'm jumping in and just way off base with where i think this is at please feel free to disregard and go back to your "auburn cheats burn them...burn them now" crusade.
Posted on 12/3/10 at 5:36 pm to WDE24
quote:
A unilateral contract requires the party to whom the contract was offered to accept by performing an act, see example and def. above. Nothing with Cecil fits this definition. This differs from a typical or bilateral contract in that it is not an exchange of promises that completes the contract and brings an obligation to both parties. Instead of exchanging promises/obligations, one party makes a promise/obligation and the other party accepts (thus creating a contract) by performing.
I will provide you (MSU) with Cam Newton to play at your school, if you pay me $180,000. Paying the $180,000 is acceptance.
Posted on 12/3/10 at 5:38 pm to arty
quote:Not really, that is bilateral contract because it is an exchange of obligations (Cam signing a LOI in exchange for $), but even if it were, unless MSU paid, no contract and no agreement.
Paying the $180,000 is acceptance.
ETA: Can you see now why I didn't want to get into this? You will come back trying to argue your point over and over and I will keep having to try to flesh it out for you. In the end, you will still not believe me because it is not what you want to believe.
This post was edited on 12/3/10 at 5:40 pm
Posted on 12/3/10 at 5:47 pm to WDE24
quote:
Not really, that is bilateral contract because it is an exchange of obligations (Cam signing a LOI in exchange for $), but even if it were, unless MSU paid, no contract and no agreement.
You're so full of it. You need to go to UofA and get your money back.
You quote the example I gave you like you were making a point and all I had to do was swap out the parties.
I don't suppose law worked out real well for you.
But just to humor you again.
Reward offers are usually unilateral contracts. The offeror (the party offering the reward) cannot impel anyone to fulfill the reward offer. An offeree can sue for breach of contract, however, if the offeror does not provide the reward after the offeree has fulfilled the contract's requirements.
Again, Cecil offers up Cam in exchange for money to the highest bidder. No school has to fulfill the the bid but Cecil acting as an agent could be sued for not providing Cam if a school does indeed provide the money.
Tell Gene hello for me.
In the end you're just talking out of your arse.
This post was edited on 12/3/10 at 5:49 pm
Posted on 12/3/10 at 5:49 pm to arty
quote:
Again, Cecil offers up Cam in exchange for money to the highest bidder. No school has to fulfill the the bid but Cecil acting as an agent could be sued for not providing Cam if a school does indeed provide the money.
This is awesome.
/clean hands doctrine
Posted on 12/3/10 at 5:52 pm to arty
quote:It's been terrible.
I don't suppose law worked out real well for you.
quote:Even if you were right about the offer of a unilateral contract (and you are not), without performance/acceptance, there is no contract only an offer. Got to go. If I have time over the weekend, maybe I will write a legal brief for you using small words and short sentences. However, I am sure I could cite 10 Supreme Court cases and a dozen accepted treatises and you wouldn't budge on your opinion. That is why this argument is useless.
after the offeree has fulfilled the contract's requirements.
This post was edited on 12/3/10 at 5:53 pm
Posted on 12/3/10 at 5:54 pm to arty
quote:Maybe NBamaAlumn will take up the cause for you. He is a Bama fan and I think a lawyer.
arty
Posted on 12/3/10 at 5:56 pm to WDE24
quote:
Maybe NBamaAlumn will take up the cause for you.
Nope.
quote:
He is a Bama fan and I think a lawyer
I saw the light after the God/Clemson win. ALL IN!
Posted on 12/3/10 at 6:03 pm to WDE24
quote:
Maybe NBamaAlumn will take up the cause for you. He is a Bama fan and I think a lawyer.
I hope he does a better job than you.
Posted on 12/3/10 at 6:09 pm to NBamaAlum
quote:
NBamaAlum
Was a charter member if not founder of the nick farily fan club. I think.
Arty. I love your persistence. You really took the maxim of if you're gonna do it do it right to heart. No one here is questioning your obsession with camgate. Hats off sir
Posted on 12/3/10 at 6:13 pm to piggidyphish
I can't lay claim to that...however, I do think that Nick F. is the very definition of class. (That being said, he is second to Cameron)
Posted on 12/3/10 at 6:19 pm to piggidyphish
quote:
Was a charter member if not founder of the nick farily fan club. I think.
Arty. I love your persistence. You really took the maxim of if you're gonna do it do it right to heart. No one here is questioning your obsession with camgate. Hats off sir
I didn't like my school getting involved with PFP and this situation stinks to high heaven also.
The time between notification and getting something done, the timing of the reinstatement, ignoring bylaws and the spirit of the laws just don't pass the smell test.
The "loophole" bit is bullshite. I work in the financial industry and the "loophole" excuse doesn't cut it with the SEC (Securities and Exchange Commission). Use that damn excuse and you wind up being cell mates with Bernie Madoff.
Page 5 of 6
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News