(03-07-2018 09:40 AM)TrueBlueDrew Wrote:  Honestly I don't see how Miami has a leg to stand on when Every. Single. Other. School. in Florida and even Georgia Southern moved their game location or date without hassle. It's painfully obvious that Miami just doesn't want to play Arkansas State and saw Hurricane Irma as their out. Hopefully the court will rule that they should just pay the buyout and stop whining.

I think a lot of the fans on here want to believe that this matters that other schools were able to reschedule... but it honestly won't here. Like I've said before, a hurricane is probably #1 or #2 on the list of classic force majeure situations - if you can't invoke it in a hurricane, then it's difficult in any situation.

If the Arkansas State argument is that Miami breached the agreement because it wasn't a force majeure situation as evidenced by other Florida schools playing games in 2017, then Arkansas State will lose and lose VERY badly (and risk losing any claim to liquidated damages entirely). The Miami decision to not play the game in 2017 will NOT be questioned. Period.

I don't think that's what Arkansas State is attempting to argue, though. Instead, the question is whether the force majeure situation means that Miami isn't obligated to pay the liquidated damages if the parties can't agree to a rescheduled game. That's a much more nuanced question that the contract isn't 100% clear on and what the court would need to clarify.

In looking at the clause, I think Miami has the better case because the liquidated damages clause is only invoked where there is a cancellation due to a breach of contract and a cancellation due to force majeure is NOT a breach. Essentially, Arkansas State would have to show that Miami not agreeing on the rescheduled dates constitutes a breach, which I really think is a stretch. If Miami is offering dates in 2024/25, then I don't think it's going to matter much if Arkansas State thinks that there are better dates open for them in earlier years. There isn't an obligation for Miami to reschedule the game at the very first available date for them - a lot of people are reading that requirement into the agreement when it's simply not there. It's not even necessarily an obligation for Miami to reschedule the game and/or pay the liquidated damages at all if they had a valid force majeure cancellation of the game (although that's what the court should be clarifying here).

Regardless, this isn't a P5 vs. G5 or big guy vs. little guy question, which is what a lot of fans are trying to turn this into. Whether Miami can afford to pay it or has more brand leverage is 100% irrelevant. If they don't owe it, then they have no obligation to pay any amount out of the goodness of their hearts. If they owe it, then they need to pay. It's a pure contractual question as opposed to some type of grander P5/G5 question.