(03-07-2018 10:55 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:   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).

Provision 14 (Force Majeure) ends with

Quote:Any games not played as scheduled shall be rescheduled as exigencies may dictate or permit.

Isn't it a more reasonable interpretation that
1. Force Majeure applies to playing the game in 2017. Miami made a call, their call stands.
2. The force majeure clause of the contract calls for the game to be rescheduled "as exigencies may dictate or permit." But there is no force majeure stopping the game from being played on mutually available dates in 2020 or 2022 or 2023.* Doesn't that imply "as soon as reasonably possible"? So requiring a strong reason to veto a date, not just "We'd like to start playing 7 home games a year"?

IF "2" is valid, Miami is pretty clearly in breach, and not because of a hurricane but because of their desire to start playing 7 home games. So Arkansas State gets the buyout money.

* "Mutually available" as defined by currently existing commitments, not commitments Miami would like to undertake.