(03-05-2018 10:13 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  The force majeure clause doesn't look good for Miami. If it said "impractical" or "inconvenient" they would have an argument. It was absolutely inconvenient, there is a straight face argument that can be made that it was impractical to play. Impossible is very tough hurdle.

No, I think Frank the Tank has it right here--cancelling was a reasonable decision based on the weather, and Force Majeure applies here. Otherwise you're removing that discretion from future decision makers.

Quote:What is interesting is that one of Miami's arguments is that it is entitled to a declaratory judgment because Arkansas State is being unreasonable in asking Miami to play on a date Miami has open but does not want to make available.

I think what Arkansas State is going to do if it ever goes to trial is to tie a bunch of things together into a package that proves that Miami just doesn't want to go to Jonesboro.

--Rumors of Miami demanding the home locker room, disapproving of the facilities
--Miami cancelling their trip, while FIU (or whoever) played
--Refusing to schedule the return game in the near future (9/12/2020), for no clear reason (Wanting a 7th home game doesn't count--looking through wikipedia, Miami played 6 home games in 2015 and 2016)

That establishes a pattern that Miami's offer of a game in 2024-25 is not a good-faith offer.

"Any games not played as scheduled shall be rescheduled as such exigencies may permit or dictate."

Miami is asking the court for

Quote:WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Universityof Miami, requests that this Court declare the following:
(i)Game 2 properly was cancelled due to a force majeure event;
(ii)ASU has acted unreasonably in refusing to agree to the Available Game 2 Dates; and
(iii)UM is relieved of any further rescheduling obligation with respect to Game 2 because of ASU’s unreasonable conduct in breach of the Game Contract.

I think UM has a pretty good chance on (i). There was, in fact, a hurricane, a state and federal state of emergency, the campus was under water, etc.

(ii) is a much tougher road for Miami. That's going to turn on how Miami justifies saying that 9/12/2020 is unavailable--fbschedules.com doesn't show anything on that date for UM or for ASU. Yes, UM will want to play an FCS home game in September of 2020--but 9/19 is open. So unless UM has some game contracts that have been signed but not announced, I don't see how ASU is unreasonable in demanding 9/12/2020 while UM is reasonable in demanding 2024 or 25. (FBSchedules.com also shows openings in 2022 and 2023)

(iii) is going to be very hard to justify. Arkansas State is demanding that the game be played on the first date available for both teams, rather than being delayed another 4-5 years for no obvious reason. (Except maybe to push the game date off to a point where neither Miami's current coach nor the current AD will be the ones who have to fulfill the contract or buy it out. Known as the "Future Ted and Marshall Gambit")

So I figure, if this ever gets to a judge, the first thing that happens is that Miami's claim of Force Majeure is upheld in cancelling the game in the first place. But Miami's claims on scheduling are a lot shakier (unless Miami has signed game contracts that aren't public knowledge.)

Force majeure strikes the liquidated damages clause, but if the court rules that Arkansas State is justified in their scheduling demands, does it mean anything that the parties previously agreed on a buyout number? [/quote]