(03-05-2018 06:30 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(03-05-2018 06:24 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-05-2018 06:11 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(03-05-2018 05:34 PM)YNot Wrote:  To clarify, Miami is asking for the court to declare:

1) whether the game at Arkansas St. was properly cancelled due to a force majeure event (Hurricane Irma);

2) whether Arkansas St. acted unreasonably in refusing to agree to one of the 2024 and 2025 available game dates;

3) whether Miami may be excused from having to reschedule the game at Arkansas St. (because of Arkansas St.'s refusal to agree to the 2024 or 2025 rescheduled date and its threat to sue for liquidated damages).

So, even if the judge rules that Miami is not excused from the second game at Arkansas St., Miami could get the judge to declare that the cancellation was justified and that Arkansas St. is unreasonable to refuse one of the 2024 or 2025 dates. This essentially forces the game in 2024 or 2025.

And, interesting to see that Miami filed first. First to file rule seems to favor Florida venue for this lawsuit, plus the arguments that it was an ACC contract drafted in Florida and became binding when Miami signed the contract in Florida.

Yea but then why would it be unreasonable for Miami to offer up the year 2125 as the make up date? I think that State is going to win this one, if it turns on available dates.

You see, there's a calculatable economic cost to this. Arkansas State has been out the revenue for the game since last year. For Miami to unreasonably refuse to schedule it at the first opportunity requires Ark State to effectily forego that revenue for longer periods of time.

IMO, if ARK wins, it will not be because of dates, it will be because the court decides "force majeur" didn't apply, and Miami could have played.

I don't think that's likely either, but to me it's more likely than that ARK will win on the dates. The contract says zero about playing sooner rather than later. It doesn't say that the home team of a canceled game is entitled to play so as to maximize their economics regardless of how that impacts on the away team, and rightly so, since the away team was not able to play.

Bottom line: If FM applies, Arkansas State isn't entitled to any consideration w/regard to rescheduling moreso than Miami, because Miami is 100% blameless for the cancellation.

UM's definition of fm is pretty tenuous as well. They could lose on that too. FIU and FAU did play away games that weekend.

Look its clear that Richt doesn't want to play away games at G5 teams and his AD is too broke to simply just pay the payout.

The judge could easily focus on the natural disaster and emergency part of force majeure - the reason the clause is in the contract to begin with - more so than on the word "impossible" or what other universities did.

Do we really want legal precedence to cause university administrators to second guess scheduling and postponement decisions in a time of a threatening natural disaster and federal and state emergency?

I'm not as confident as Quo on the rescheduling issue. I think it is reasonable for Arkansas St. to demand Miami reschedule the game sooner. Miami has not proven the inability to play the game in 2021 - just a strong desire to have an FCS home game instead of a road game at Arkansas St.