Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

CsquaredCC

Boise State Has Filed Suit Against the MWC

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, halfmanhalfbronco said:

What makes him more of a legal expert than the lawyers who have already commented on the matter?

He stayed at a Holiday Inn Express....

In the beginning the Universe was created.
This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, halfmanhalfbronco said:

Yes, the language in the contract makes it clear they should.

Your lawyer doesn't agree with this opinion?

Implied terms for termination in indefinite contracts

Contracts with no Expiry Date that form the basis of an on-going relationship, rather than provide for the performance a discrete set of obligations, may be characterised as indefinite contracts (Indefinite Contracts).

Courts have historically been prepared to find that it is an implied term in Indefinite Contracts that the Terminating Party, absent any breach by the other party, may terminate the Contract by providing “reasonable notice” to them (Reasonable Notice Clause).[1] 

 

 

or this precedent?

Esther L. BARTON, Personal Representative of the Estate of Louisa Murphy, Deceased, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. STATE of Idaho and Idaho State Department of Transportation, or Agency or Department of the State of Idaho, Defendants-Respondents 104 Idaho 338, 659 P.2d 92

https://cite.case.law/idaho/104/338/

"We are also unwilling to imply — as a matter of law — a term in the contract which would bind the State in perpetuity. In our view, such a term would violate public policy."

"The trial court, as a matter of law, held that it would not impose an obligation on the State to be bound for “any particular length of time” where the contract is silent as to duration and the parties’ intent cannot be ascertained. The majority rule, and the one which has been followed in Idaho, is that where a contract is silent and the parties’ intent cannot be ascertained the parties are bound for a reasonable time. In Shultz, supra, we stated:“When the duration of the promised performance is not provided for in the contract, a court may imply a promise that the performance is terminable at the will of the parties if reasonable notice of termination is given and if performance has been rendered for a reasonable time.” 97 Idaho at 775, 554 P.2d at 953."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, renoskier said:

Your lawyer doesn't agree with this opinion?

Implied terms for termination in indefinite contracts

Contracts with no Expiry Date that form the basis of an on-going relationship, rather than provide for the performance a discrete set of obligations, may be characterised as indefinite contracts (Indefinite Contracts).

Courts have historically been prepared to find that it is an implied term in Indefinite Contracts that the Terminating Party, absent any breach by the other party, may terminate the Contract by providing “reasonable notice” to them (Reasonable Notice Clause).[1] 

 

 

or this precedent?

Esther L. BARTON, Personal Representative of the Estate of Louisa Murphy, Deceased, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. STATE of Idaho and Idaho State Department of Transportation, or Agency or Department of the State of Idaho, Defendants-Respondents 104 Idaho 338, 659 P.2d 92

https://cite.case.law/idaho/104/338/

"We are also unwilling to imply — as a matter of law — a term in the contract which would bind the State in perpetuity. In our view, such a term would violate public policy."

"The trial court, as a matter of law, held that it would not impose an obligation on the State to be bound for “any particular length of time” where the contract is silent as to duration and the parties’ intent cannot be ascertained. The majority rule, and the one which has been followed in Idaho, is that where a contract is silent and the parties’ intent cannot be ascertained the parties are bound for a reasonable time. In Shultz, supra, we stated:“When the duration of the promised performance is not provided for in the contract, a court may imply a promise that the performance is terminable at the will of the parties if reasonable notice of termination is given and if performance has been rendered for a reasonable time.” 97 Idaho at 775, 554 P.2d at 953."

There is a length to the contract though.  As long as Boise is in the MWC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, halfmanhalfbronco said:

There is a length to the contract though.  As long as Boise is in the MWC.

That's a condition which contradicts the above precedent because that would obviously be true of all "Indefinite contracts".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, halfmanhalfbronco said:

Seems the precedent was such contracts can not be enforced that violate public policy.  This does no such thing.

Tell me, what does "public policy" means in the context of the case cited? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, halfmanhalfbronco said:

Seems the precedent was such contracts can not be enforced that violate public policy.  This does no such thing.

The precedent just shows that the courts, with "reasonable notice", will allow a party to end an on going relationships in which no termination date was originally agreed to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, renoskier said:

The precedent just shows that the courts, with "reasonable notice", will allow a party to end an on going relationships in which no termination date was originally agreed to.

Was their language in that contract similar to the language in the re-entry agreement, explicitly stating the length of the agreement is for the duration of the length of partnership?  If so, can you provide a link the section of the contract stating that? 

If not, then it IS NOT precedent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, BobbyBoSox said:

You don't get to end the contract AND retain the rights to the team. That's slavery.
If you want BSU, it's in the contract.
The vote to end the payout was a vote kicking BSU out of the league.

Cool. Enjoy the Big Sky. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest #1Stunner
45 minutes ago, renoskier said:

Your lawyer doesn't agree with this opinion?

Implied terms for termination in indefinite contracts

Contracts with no Expiry Date that form the basis of an on-going relationship, rather than provide for the performance a discrete set of obligations, may be characterised as indefinite contracts (Indefinite Contracts).

Courts have historically been prepared to find that it is an implied term in Indefinite Contracts that the Terminating Party, absent any breach by the other party, may terminate the Contract by providing “reasonable notice” to them (Reasonable Notice Clause).[1] 

 

 

or this precedent?

Esther L. BARTON, Personal Representative of the Estate of Louisa Murphy, Deceased, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. STATE of Idaho and Idaho State Department of Transportation, or Agency or Department of the State of Idaho, Defendants-Respondents 104 Idaho 338, 659 P.2d 92

https://cite.case.law/idaho/104/338/

"We are also unwilling to imply — as a matter of law — a term in the contract which would bind the State in perpetuity. In our view, such a term would violate public policy."

"The trial court, as a matter of law, held that it would not impose an obligation on the State to be bound for “any particular length of time” where the contract is silent as to duration and the parties’ intent cannot be ascertained. The majority rule, and the one which has been followed in Idaho, is that where a contract is silent and the parties’ intent cannot be ascertained the parties are bound for a reasonable time. In Shultz, supra, we stated:“When the duration of the promised performance is not provided for in the contract, a court may imply a promise that the performance is terminable at the will of the parties if reasonable notice of termination is given and if performance has been rendered for a reasonable time.” 97 Idaho at 775, 554 P.2d at 953."

 

What?

I though that the contract does have a defined termination "event".

"IF / WHEN Boise leaves the MWC, this contract and the obligation to pay the Broncos Nation an additional $1.8M in TV scrilla cash money terminates."

 

That seems pretty "definite" to me.   The termination date is when Boise voluntarily leaves the MWC (or gets kicked out by Wyoming).   I guess the MWC / Hair can "terminate" the contract by simply providing notice to Boise that they are kicked out of the MWC?   Hair hasn't had the stones to do that yet. (they want to have their cake and eat it too).

 

Deferring to @OrediggerPoke for his professional opinion on this, though.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest #1Stunner
6 minutes ago, BleedRed702 said:

Anyone with a tldr version of this thread? 

Boise is supposedly in talks (real rumor) with the Big West and AAC

Boise is going to break bread with the Floridan directional schools, Tulsa, the Texas 2, Tulane, Bill Cosby (Temple), Memphis State, and Cincy (but not Fresno Cincy)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, #1Stunner said:

Boise is supposedly in talks (real rumor) with the Big West and AAC

Boise is going to break bread with the Floridan directional schools, Tulsa, the Texas 2, Tulane, Bill Cosby (Temple), Memphis State, and Cincy (but not Fresno Cincy)

What constitutes a real rumor?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Talks are required if you've publicly stated you're investigating all options.  Odds are still that they stay and get back what they were promised and maybe even eliminate any exit fees for down the road.  BW would be great for baseball and volleyball though and if they went that way it would just prove how little the AD values men's hoops.  Would expect a budget freeze there or worse and a drop in the mediocre to good overall level we've seen since Leon got here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest #1Stunner
16 minutes ago, nvspuds said:

The voices in your head are not real sources

WRONG!

I called the Wyoming vs BYU football series....5 years before it happened.  (no one believed me that this was ever possible!!!  That the Toms would do this)

I called the BYU vs SDSU football series....3 years before it happened.   @Yellow Evan@Vai Sika @Dirtball

I called the Boise vs BYU 10 year football renewal....4 years before it happened.

I called a neutral site BYU vs Boise basketball game, Idaho Falls Events Center Game.....before the arena was even built!!!! @BroncoOrange

AND.....

 

I'm saying right here, right now, that a BYU vs Nevada football series will be announced within the next 18 months (bookmark this thread)

 

I repeat, Boise to the BIG WEST / AAC is huge right now.  Huge!!!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...