I missed it in that article.

Thanks for pointing it out.

I am floored by the shoddiness of that thing. Damn!

(02-23-2018 09:21 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(02-22-2018 01:55 PM)YNot Wrote:  

(02-22-2018 01:43 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(02-22-2018 01:36 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(02-22-2018 12:36 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  You don't see it that way?

Well OK, but do you have a compelling argument under Arkansas law to offer to a judge to explain why his honor should depart from the accepted rules of contract interpretation in Arkansas?

That's an interesting question: Why should Arkansas law prevail on a contract between ARK-ST and Miami? The contract involved games in Florida and Arkansas, it wasn't a strictly-Arkansas contract, seems like Florida law would be just as applicable.

Seems like since the contract didn't originate solely in Arkansas or Florida, a federal venue would be fairest, otherwise one side or the other would have an unwarranted 'home field advantage' not conducive to justice.

That all said, I don't think Arkansas law expects the impossible either. That is, as i explained in the last post, the contract clause negates the idea that "impossible" should be read in a literal/dictionary way, because if it was meant that way, there would be no need for the clause at all. So the existence of the clause means the term is to be read in a broader, non-literal way.

Also, the clause 14 does not say that the game should be rescheduled for as soon as possible, i.e., 2021 rather than 2024. It says the *rescheduling* should occur as soon as possible, that is, if the game is canceled, then the parties should come together as soon as is feasible to reschedule the game - they should meet to discuss rescheduling days or weeks after the emergency has passed, not months or years later. It doesn't say the result of that meeting need be a game scheduled for sooner rather than later.

Because the suit was filed in an Arkansas court. Thats how it works. Selecting a venue is one of the biggest advantages a plantiff has...and frankly, unless Florida has a specific legal meaning for the word "impossible", its likely a Florida court would treat its meaning similarly (assuming you can even get the case moved to Florida--which I doubt---as ypu'd have to prove an Arkansas State court wouldnt be considered a reasonable venue. Hard to prove that when the game was to be played in Arkansas and the institution filing suit is located in Arkansas.

Pretty easy to remove the suit to federal court (in Arkansas) based on diversity jurisdiction.

If the 11th permits it, removal is easy and in the case no real burden since the Federal courthouse is next door to the county courthouse.

It’s not a question of permission.

(02-23-2018 07:50 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  I missed it in that article.

Thanks for pointing it out.

I am floored by the shoddiness of that thing. Damn!

It's shoddy for both sides. From Miami's current POV, their AD looks like an idiot for crossing out the section about Florida law, and for not having better protection in case of a hurricane, given that there have been hurricane-related cancellations or rescheduling many times over the last 20 years or so.

From Arkansas State's point of view -- the contract provides the same penalty for cancellation ($650,000) whether a team cancels two years or two days before the game is scheduled to be played. But they're not the only team to get caught with a provision like that in a game contract. Oregon's former AD got caught with a game contract for a home game against Wyoming that had language like that (and an even lower buyout). Wyoming called to cancel a few months before the game was to be played, and said they would agree to not cancel only if Oregon agreed to play a future game at Wyoming that was not in the original contract. In case you were wondering why the Ducks played Wyoming in Laramie last season, that's why.

(02-24-2018 12:54 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(02-23-2018 07:50 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  I missed it in that article.

Thanks for pointing it out.

I am floored by the shoddiness of that thing. Damn!

It's shoddy for both sides. From Miami's current POV, their AD looks like an idiot for crossing out the section about Florida law, and for not having better protection in case of a hurricane, given that there have been hurricane-related cancellations or rescheduling many times over the last 20 years or so.

From Arkansas State's point of view -- the contract provides the same penalty for cancellation ($650,000) whether a team cancels two years or two days before the game is scheduled to be played. But they're not the only team to get caught with a provision like that in a game contract. Oregon's former AD got caught with a game contract for a home game against Wyoming that had language like that (and an even lower buyout). Wyoming called to cancel a few months before the game was to be played, and said they would agree to not cancel only if Oregon agreed to play a future game at Wyoming that was not in the original contract. In case you were wondering why the Ducks played Wyoming in Laramie last season, that's why.

I Didn’t wonder why Oregon played at Wyoming at all when actual big time programs with traveling fans like Texas and Nebraska have traveled to Wyoming for football games.

(02-23-2018 03:44 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  Has anybody posted the contract?

I would be utterly and completely shocked if it did not contain a forum selection clause--which would make most of this entire page of arguing moot.

Some matlocks up in here got it all ciphered out.

(02-24-2018 12:54 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(02-23-2018 07:50 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  I missed it in that article.

Thanks for pointing it out.

I am floored by the shoddiness of that thing. Damn!

It's shoddy for both sides. From Miami's current POV, their AD looks like an idiot for crossing out the section about Florida law, and for not having better protection in case of a hurricane, given that there have been hurricane-related cancellations or rescheduling many times over the last 20 years or so.

From Arkansas State's point of view -- the contract provides the same penalty for cancellation ($650,000) whether a team cancels two years or two days before the game is scheduled to be played. But they're not the only team to get caught with a provision like that in a game contract. Oregon's former AD got caught with a game contract for a home game against Wyoming that had language like that (and an even lower buyout). Wyoming called to cancel a few months before the game was to be played, and said they would agree to not cancel only if Oregon agreed to play a future game at Wyoming that was not in the original contract. In case you were wondering why the Ducks played Wyoming in Laramie last season, that's why.

It amazes me that people are doing $1.9 million game contracts (or in this case a home and home with $650,000 in liquidated damages) that are so poorly done. I would bet that a $50,000 HVAC contract for a university is written much tighter.

Force majure should be rethought. Take the Idaho-Florida in 2014. Florida could have invoked it and owed zero despite Idaho's expenses traveling. They ended up paying Idaho to come again at a later date but they didn't have to.

Time of cancellation ought to be different. A team could cancel on game day and just pay the damages which at that point would be vastly different than if the game were cancelled 12 months in advance which would different from 24 months out. Don't recall who it was now but someone cancelled on Arkansas quite a few years ago about 11 months before the game and UA ended up paying twice as much to get a replacement buy game

(02-23-2018 07:50 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  I missed it in that article.

Thanks for pointing it out.

I am floored by the shoddiness of that thing. Damn!

Typical G5/P5 home and home contract. It took Miami forever to even agree to the entire wording. We had known about the deal for a few months by the time it was finally announced.

I know you are probably not familiar with these deals since Bama doesn't play OOC road games with anyone, but a lot of these things are a mess of legalese.

(02-24-2018 11:15 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  

(02-23-2018 07:50 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  I missed it in that article.

Thanks for pointing it out.

I am floored by the shoddiness of that thing. Damn!

Typical G5/P5 home and home contract. It took Miami forever to even agree to the entire wording. We had known about the deal for a few months by the time it was finally announced.

I know you are probably not familiar with these deals since Bama doesn't play OOC road games with anyone, but a lot of these things are a mess of legalese.

That is not a "mess of legalese," that's just a mess.

I know you probably aren't familiar with that kind of thing in general.

(02-24-2018 09:07 AM)shere khan Wrote:  

(02-23-2018 03:44 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  Has anybody posted the contract?

I would be utterly and completely shocked if it did not contain a forum selection clause--which would make most of this entire page of arguing moot.

Some matlocks up in here got it all ciphered out.

They are all over it!

http://www.kait8.com/2018/11/14/a-state-...l-lawsuit/

Quote:The University of Miami and Arkansas State University have settled their lawsuit battle over a canceled game.

According to Vice President for Strategic Communications & Economic Development Jeff Hankins, Miami will pay A-State $400,000 in the settlement over the canceled game last September, because of concerns about traveling back to South Florida with a hurricane looming.

The Miami Herald reports that UM believed it would have cost nearly $400,000, with legal fees and other costs, had the matter not been resolved, so that’s why UM settled at that amount.

The cancelled game will not be rescheduled.

(11-15-2018 08:10 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  http://www.kait8.com/2018/11/14/a-state-...l-lawsuit/

Quote:The University of Miami and Arkansas State University have settled their lawsuit battle over a canceled game.

According to Vice President for Strategic Communications & Economic Development Jeff Hankins, Miami will pay A-State $400,000 in the settlement over the canceled game last September, because of concerns about traveling back to South Florida with a hurricane looming.

The Miami Herald reports that UM believed it would have cost nearly $400,000, with legal fees and other costs, had the matter not been resolved, so that’s why UM settled at that amount.

The cancelled game will not be rescheduled.

The original contract called for IIRC a $650,000 payout to ARKST, so UM ended up paying about 60% of that amount.

Eh, it's over with.

(11-15-2018 10:50 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-15-2018 08:10 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  http://www.kait8.com/2018/11/14/a-state-...l-lawsuit/

Quote:The University of Miami and Arkansas State University have settled their lawsuit battle over a canceled game.

According to Vice President for Strategic Communications & Economic Development Jeff Hankins, Miami will pay A-State $400,000 in the settlement over the canceled game last September, because of concerns about traveling back to South Florida with a hurricane looming.

The Miami Herald reports that UM believed it would have cost nearly $400,000, with legal fees and other costs, had the matter not been resolved, so that’s why UM settled at that amount.

The cancelled game will not be rescheduled.

The original contract called for IIRC a $650,000 payout to ARKST, so UM ended up paying about 60% of that amount.

Eh, it's over with.

Miami spent $400,000 more than they claimed they owed.

(11-15-2018 10:50 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-15-2018 08:10 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  http://www.kait8.com/2018/11/14/a-state-...l-lawsuit/

Quote:The University of Miami and Arkansas State University have settled their lawsuit battle over a canceled game.

According to Vice President for Strategic Communications & Economic Development Jeff Hankins, Miami will pay A-State $400,000 in the settlement over the canceled game last September, because of concerns about traveling back to South Florida with a hurricane looming.

The Miami Herald reports that UM believed it would have cost nearly $400,000, with legal fees and other costs, had the matter not been resolved, so that’s why UM settled at that amount.

The cancelled game will not be rescheduled.

The original contract called for IIRC a $650,000 payout to ARKST, so UM ended up paying about 60% of that amount.

Eh, it's over with.

Miami essentially got a home bodybag game for $400k.

(11-15-2018 12:37 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(11-15-2018 10:50 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-15-2018 08:10 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  http://www.kait8.com/2018/11/14/a-state-...l-lawsuit/

Quote:The University of Miami and Arkansas State University have settled their lawsuit battle over a canceled game.

According to Vice President for Strategic Communications & Economic Development Jeff Hankins, Miami will pay A-State $400,000 in the settlement over the canceled game last September, because of concerns about traveling back to South Florida with a hurricane looming.

The Miami Herald reports that UM believed it would have cost nearly $400,000, with legal fees and other costs, had the matter not been resolved, so that’s why UM settled at that amount.

The cancelled game will not be rescheduled.

The original contract called for IIRC a $650,000 payout to ARKST, so UM ended up paying about 60% of that amount.

Eh, it's over with.

Miami spent $400,000 more than they claimed they owed.

And IIRC, Ark State got $250,000 less than they claimed they would get.

(11-15-2018 01:07 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(11-15-2018 10:50 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-15-2018 08:10 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  http://www.kait8.com/2018/11/14/a-state-...l-lawsuit/

Quote:The University of Miami and Arkansas State University have settled their lawsuit battle over a canceled game.

According to Vice President for Strategic Communications & Economic Development Jeff Hankins, Miami will pay A-State $400,000 in the settlement over the canceled game last September, because of concerns about traveling back to South Florida with a hurricane looming.

The Miami Herald reports that UM believed it would have cost nearly $400,000, with legal fees and other costs, had the matter not been resolved, so that’s why UM settled at that amount.

The cancelled game will not be rescheduled.

The original contract called for IIRC a $650,000 payout to ARKST, so UM ended up paying about 60% of that amount.

Eh, it's over with.

Miami essentially got a home bodybag game for $400k.

These days, that's a bargain.

Heck, Texas A&M is paying $1.6 million for a game with a UAB team this week that isn't a body bag.

Anybody else amazed that the official legal mediation document is handwritten on a legal pad? Not even in a cursive that your parents' elementary school teachers would have approved of.

Link.

One second--it appears to be written on TWO DIFFERENT legal pads--there is a big color change from page one to page two. Maybe it's just different scan resolutions. Or maybe it's front-and-back, and the firsr page is a xerox of the yellow original?

Still pretty wild in 2018.

Pretty cheap buyout for Miami. I think ASU rather had the home game. From all the Brew Ha from the initial spat.

(11-15-2018 06:14 PM)msm96wolf Wrote:  Pretty cheap buyout for Miami. I think ASU rather had the home game. From all the Brew Ha from the initial spat.

Wasn't going to happen for ASU so take the money and run.

(11-15-2018 08:43 PM)panite Wrote:  

(11-15-2018 06:14 PM)msm96wolf Wrote:  Pretty cheap buyout for Miami. I think ASU rather had the home game. From all the Brew Ha from the initial spat.

Wasn't going to happen for ASU so take the money and run.

And in the US with no loser pays system, the cost of fighting for the extra $250,000 wasn't going to be worth it.

(11-16-2018 10:01 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(11-15-2018 08:43 PM)panite Wrote:  

(11-15-2018 06:14 PM)msm96wolf Wrote:  Pretty cheap buyout for Miami. I think ASU rather had the home game. From all the Brew Ha from the initial spat.

Wasn't going to happen for ASU so take the money and run.

And in the US with no loser pays system, the cost of fighting for the extra $250,000 wasn't going to be worth it.

Yes, it looks like both sides settled to avoid costs of litigation rather than because either came to believe the other was correct, etc.