Random Musings: Rev Bubba / Gruden UT Breach

I said Gruden has.

 

And he clearly hasn't under your scenario.

 

You seem to have a comprehension problem. As an attorney for Tennessee, it wouldn't be an issue because their liability is only as to breach of K, and the liquidated damages clause, or buyout clause, covers their liability.

 

Rev is lawyer geeking without using any common sense. Technically you may be correct but so what. The minute Dooley presses charges according to your tort scenario is the last job he'll ever get in college coaching. He'll take his $5M early termination fee, he'll thank the University of Tennessee for the opportunity and he'll express regret for not succeeding according to the historic expectations of this grand program and he'll accept a job at a directional school more in line with his experience and ability.

 

It is no more Gruden's responsibility to protect UT's legal interests, or to limit their exposure than it is mine.

And, while I'm no lawyer and cannot go point for point with you on purely legal grounds, I can say that simply because you haven't heard or seen an agreement, or can conceive how such might not only be possible but with little to no exposure for anyone involved - doesn't mean that it hasn't happened, or doesn't exist.

And in any event, you can be certain that there is no shortage of entirely competent counsel than that which would be readily available, not only for all involved, but for the entirety of the process, itself.

However, if the totality of your argument is simply to support your position by essentially asserting that anyone can file suit against anyone else, well, I guess that makes right?

 

Actually, he's just wrong on everything he's said about this topic.

 

What are the elements of tortious intereference?

1 - a legal contract [Dooley and the University have a legal contract]

2 - Defendant has knowledge of the contract [Gruden knows how caoching works and that Dooley is under contract]

3 - an intent to induce a breach of the contract [by negotiating with the university for the head coach position Gruden is attemtping to have the university breach the contract]

4 - breach of contract [Dooley is fired]


That is basically it. So where am I wrong?

 

Quoting the resume is the first sign of a weakened position.

Next we'll be talking about what you made on the SAT? Of course you know that anything more than a 2100 means you automatically win any argument on the interwebz, right?

 

I have a comprehension problem? You do not even seem to understand the difference between a contract claim and a tort claim.

Liquidated damages apply for the breach of contract. A breach of contract is not a tort.

Tort law would apply if Dooley, in this situation, accused someone of a tort - in this case, perhaps, Gruden.
They are clearly separate - good legal comprehension makes it obvious.

 

First, I'd just point out how you've done a 180 about who's liable for tortious interference. First, it was Tennessee, and after that was totally and completely pointed out as bulkshit, you're now pretending Gruden is liable.

Now, as to where you're wrong, it would be element 3. Gruden isn't inducing Tennessee to do anything. Tennessee has voluntarily chosen to speak to Gruden. He isn't inducing Tennessee to breach. Tennessee has already decided to breach.

 

Cliff notes for anyone not wanting to read through this garbage: if you need to representation call hat not rev.. Hell even call the butt chug lawyer.

 

It doesn't matter...Dooley would never press it out of career preservation.

 

is quoting the resume one step above or below going on a message board talking about "connections"?

 

Doesn't Dooley's contract include provisions for his dismissal? If UT exercises that provision, how is that a breach, exactly?

Do you think that there wouldn't be ample evidences, mountainous even, as to why he was terminated, well beyond anything - however distant or imaginary - relating to Gruden?

 

How many times does I have to be said before it sinks in. Dooley absolutely, 1000% does not have a tort claim against UT or Jon Gruden. This is pathetic.

 

2100...Can I combine the scores from all three times I took it?

 

Do you believe he has already been told he won't be back? That's the feeling I got when I first started reading these threads here. I think he was told and still went about his business hoping he could prove Hart wrong. Dooley doesn't look like a coach that is confident about getting a 4th year. Like I said , I think he is just following the terms of his contract , and will be gone by the bowl game , should we make it to one.

 

Ref #3 above.

Since there is no coaching vacancy at UTK, please prove that the university is in negotiations with Gruden for a job that does not exist. It apoears you are basing your stance on rumors and heresay.

 

If he's been told he needs to go about his business to make himself as marketable as possible for the next job. He's got a whole career to coach for these last three games.

 

Well...I don't take offense when someone disagrees with anything I've said, ostensibly, because I haven't foolishly attached my sense of self-worth on the approval of anonymous others.

But that's me. That's how I handle it. I trust you can spot the difference, just as everyone else has likely long-since deduced.