(03-05-2018 10:13 PM)arkstfan 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.

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.

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 that clause looks great for Miami. There was a Federal and State of Emergency in their area at the time. If I'm a judge, that's all i need to know to not second-guess decisions made by school officials, really it should take about 10 seconds for the judge to find in Miami's favor on that.

As I said before, there's no reason for a "clause" of any kind to handle truly impossible situations, because it goes without saying that no party can be held in breach of contract for failing to do something that is impossible to do. The existence of the clause is meant to explain what should happen in the event an emergency makes playing onerous, unwise, etc.