Random Musings: Rev Bubba / Gruden UT Breach

Discussion in 'The Thunderdome' started by RevBubbaFlavel, Nov 9, 2012.

  1. LawVol13

    LawVol13 Chieftain

    Tennessee would have breached the contract. That's what happens anytime a coach is fired for not winning enough. You're referring to a firing for cause. This would be for something like a Petrino deal or NCAA issues. When it's purely wins and losses, it's a breach, and Tennessee limits their liability to the buyout clause, also known as a liquidated damages clause. In this case, it's $5 million.
     
  2. Tenacious D

    Tenacious D The law is of supreme importance, or no importance

    Depends...is it possible that you might some day file a tort claim?

    If so - you win.
     
  3. Tenacious D

    Tenacious D The law is of supreme importance, or no importance

    I have no doubt that Dooley understands that he will not return next season.
     
  4. Tenacious D

    Tenacious D The law is of supreme importance, or no importance

    I do like Rev's username of choice - I should point that out.
     
  5. RoadTrip

    RoadTrip New Member

    Fascinating display of being paid by the word. Pretend an issue may exist to wrack up hours. Dealt with that type for over 30 years. Except the payment is e-cred here. Wow.

    I am amazed at the number of people in this world that believe they know more about an endless array of subjects than the parties involved.
     
  6. IP

    IP Super Moderator

    I found the butt chug lawyer to be pretty good in a difficult situation.
     
  7. RevBubbaFlavel

    RevBubbaFlavel Contributor

    First, I do not believe I ever said Tennessee could be liable for tortious intereference - if I did I was wrong. I know I said they were potentially liable for some things if they were negotiating with Gruden while Dooley was under contract. And I still believe that.

    As far as whether Gruden would be actually liable under this scenario - who knows. But there is a prima facie case - i.e. this would not be just some silly lawsuit. It has some degree of backing. the idea that Tennessee had already decided to fire Dooley would be a helpful fact, but it would not be dispositive under the statute (show me the language where it would be).

    Also, as I have said - I seriously doubt Dooley would bring such a suit. This is mostly "theoretical". But, as I have also said, no unversity is going to engage in such sloppy behavior, and no coach with any degree of sophistication would engage in such behavior. There is a reason Petrino has a horrible reputation. You guys really think Gruden is silly enough to start going down that road?

    And finally, again as I said earlier - there are ways that schools guage a candidate's desire to coach and what he is willing to accept to do so without going through any sort of official channels. That is how these things happen for the most part when people are still under contract.
     
    Last edited: Nov 9, 2012
  8. RoadTrip

    RoadTrip New Member

    This. Truth. Been there in two non-sport related employment contracts. One is still active.
     
  9. RevBubbaFlavel

    RevBubbaFlavel Contributor

    Continually saying it does not make it so.
     
  10. RoadTrip

    RoadTrip New Member

    It did in the election.
     
  11. IMISSTHEBOWLBROS

    IMISSTHEBOWLBROS Contributor

    This has gotten to be brutal...glad I took a biz law......torts and liabilities! Were having a legal conversation...
    So know one can handle the truth!
     
  12. LawVol13

    LawVol13 Chieftain

    Yes, you clearly said Tennessee was liable, and yes, you were 100% wrong.

    As to whether Gruden is actually liable under this scenario, it's very clear. He's not. Unless you fabricated some facts like Gruden initiated talks with Tennessee in order to make Tennessee fire [ddiapos], there's nothing. There is not a prima facie case on the scenario we're describing. There's not even a scintilla of evidence that Gruden had the intent to cause Tennessee to breach the contract.
     
  13. fl0at_

    fl0at_ Humorless, asinine, joyless pr*ck


    Wouldn't Gruden have to have malicious intent to fall under statute? (Before interceding LV, we are playing under the presumption that Gruden sought out Tennessee, not Tennessee voluntarily breaching, which clearly is the case.)
     
  14. RevBubbaFlavel

    RevBubbaFlavel Contributor

    I have been a member here for 2 years , I think. But really just started posting and feel like I have started off really bad.
    I just saw what I took to be snarky/snide comments directed at me and hit back. It was silly to do so.

    Its also silly to get into legal shit.

    I have made my point, which is I don;t believe anyone who says that the university and Gruden have negotiated in any sort of official capacity. And I will leave it at that.

    Its a good forum, and I do not want to be "that guy"

    EDIt - I see now, I have been a member for a year.
     
    Last edited: Nov 9, 2012
  15. DynaVol

    DynaVol Member

    All that arguing just to say you don't believe the rumors...lol
     
  16. LawVol13

    LawVol13 Chieftain

    You're not "that guy." A good debate is what makes this site what it is. Welcome to the site, and post more.
     
  17. OrangeEmpire

    OrangeEmpire Take a chance, Custer did

    So sayeth the shephard!
     
  18. HypeVol

    HypeVol New Member

    After all this talk I just know I'm now liable to go to the bakery and get a tort. They're delicious.
     
  19. Bdouble

    Bdouble Member

    I had a tort once. Though embarrassing as hell, a good doctor can take it right off.
     
    RoadTrip likes this.
  20. Oldvol75

    Oldvol75 Super Bigfoot Guru Mod

    I stayed in a Holiday Inn Express!
     

Share This Page