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

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 post
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 post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
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 post
Share on other sites
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 post
Share on other sites
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 post
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 post
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 post
Share on other sites
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 post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, #1Stunner said:

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.

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!!!

 

You could be right..I would be surprised by a Nevada/Boise football series, though..That seems unlikely.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, nvspuds said:

You could be right..I would be surprised by a Nevada/Boise football series, though..That seems unlikely.

Correct, technically.  One and dones do not really qualify as a series.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, nvspuds said:

You could be right..I would be surprised by a Nevada/Boise football series, though..That seems unlikely.

I'm going to get that deal done, just for you.

You are probably the biggest WolfPack fan on the board.   I'm going to make it happen.

Yes, there are a lot of face tattoos / piercings among the citizenry of Reno, but I like the town and people regardless.  Reno'ites are good people.    Imma get it done.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, #1Stunner said:

I'm going to get that deal done, just for you.

You are probably the biggest WolfPack fan on the board.   I'm going to make it happen.

Yes, there are a lot of face tattoos / piercings among the citizenry of Reno, but I like the town and people regardless.  Reno'ites are good people.    Imma get it done.

Well, you are a legend in your own room..

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, RSF said:

No, they didnt.  They talked openly about eliminating East and West.  They are considering realigning the divisions (and continue to), which they have done before. 

 

The Pac 12 (got them mixed up with the ACC for some reason) was already against it, as was the SEC. The current restrictions got them and the Big 10 on board.  That's enough to block it.

 

https://www.detroitnews.com/story/sports/college/big-ten/2019/07/19/big-ten-division-realignment-talk-picks-up-steam-amid-easts-dominance/1776640001/

 

 

Wrong again.  

After missing out on the College Football Playoff for the second year in a row, the Big Ten is discussing the possibility of doing away with the conference's East and West divisions, commissioner Jim Delany said on Wednesday.

According to Delany, Big Ten decision makers have had conversations about making changes to the Big Ten championship game so that it would feature the two best teams and not the division winners. 

"It's an item that has been discussed before," Delany said at the Sports Business Journal Intercollegiate Athletics Forum in New York. "There is actually more discussion now than there was four years ago."

 

https://www.si.com/college/2018/12/06/jim-delany-big-ten-divisions-realignment-playoff

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours 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."

 

I think the key here is the intent of the parties.  It seems to me the two parties could have placed an expiration date in the original deal in 2013 or the amended deal in 2017,  Instead, on both occasions, no expiration was placed in the deal.  Furthermore,  the term sheet has specific clauses that block the MW from unilaterally changing the deal.   The deal also indicates that it overrides all other documents and bylaws governing the MW.  Thus, it seems pretty clear the intent of the parties was for the deal to last as long as Boise was in the conference.

Even if you want to use the perpetual or indefinite contract arguments---Boise could argue the announcement of the intent to cancel the deal gives them the right to take legal action due to  "anticipatory breach"  which requires that Boise act to mitigate any damages the cancellation would cause Boise.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, #1Stunner said:

 

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.

 

I doubt we will see this play out and Idaho law might have some unique intricacies (if that ultimately is determined to be the choice of law).  

But contract law, is going to require several questions be addressed:

1) Is there an enforceable contract? Very likely yes.  This requires offer and acceptance of some reasonably ascertainable terms along with consideration on both ends of the bargain. Additionally, one would ask did the parties purporting to agree to the contract have authority to bind the various parties.  Here - we have a writing that addresses the subject matter.

2) If there is an enforceable contract, what are the terms of the contract? 

-For a written contract, we typically first look to the plain language of the writing.  Whether additional evidence in addition to the writing is admissible typically comes down to whether there are terms that the contract does not address and/or whether the terms of the writing are or are not deemed ambiguous.  Ultimately it is up to the trier of fact to 'gap fill' for an excluded term or to determine the meaning of an ambiguous term.  

-If a writing is silent or ambiguous to a particular term - - this opens the door to extrinsic evidence that is usually produced throughout the discovery process.  Such additional evidence, could include: communications  between the parties before, during or after the written contract; industry standards; testimony of the various parties to the contract; etc...

OVERALL: At this point, I see no way an outsider could make any sort of definitive conclusion based on the merits.  There is likely too much additional relevant and admissible evidence that one would be unaware of.

NOTE:   The court makes the legal determination as a matter of law whether a particular provision of a contract is ambiguous or not. I will say that some courts are very willing to determine that a provision of a contract, which may otherwise seem straight forward, is ambiguous.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...