FAU Connoisseur!
1st String
Posts: 2,216
Joined: May 2019
Reputation: 1469
I Root For: #CometotheFAU
Location:
|
RE: SBC3 on SBC Schdeule
(03-02-2022 05:27 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: (03-02-2022 05:09 PM)PaulDel2 Wrote: (03-02-2022 12:16 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: (03-02-2022 11:38 AM)ODUalum78 Wrote: (03-02-2022 11:28 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: You misstate the predicate for tortious interference in Texas. Elements are: 1) knowledge of contract; 2) interference with the contract; 3) the act of interference being willful and intentional; 4 )damages.
Kind of hard for SBC to say that they were forced by a third party to do what they did in the schedules, and hard for them to say it was a mistake to include the schools in the schedule. The 'intent' is the intent to commit the underlying act of interference, not intent *to* interfere necessarily.
If CUSA actually has damages to their network for an early departure, it would very much be in their interest to pursue it.
The 'penalty' in the bylaws isnt 'arbitration'. The 'penalty' is equitable remedies.
Arbitration is the method by which the parties agreed to settle issues in the bylaws. And, I use the term 'agreed' in a loose sense since apparently some parties really didnt.
I certainly would not presume to understand the interpretation and application of Texas law, and I know that you do. However, I submit that the #3 (willful and intentional) will not be easy to prove.
Poor choice of wording on my part re "penalties".
Thank you for the reasoned discussion.
I think that the proposition will be far easier than you might imagine.
There are two levels of tortious interference in Texas, one with punitives.
And there are two types of intent for the punitive damages version that you allude to above.
Any claim of tortious interference only requires showing that the defendant desired to cause the consequences of their act, or that the consequences were substantially certain to result from the act.
Did SBC desire to have the SB3 as members in 2022? Yes. Their schedule is not just the predicate act, but evidence of the consequences of their act.
Are the consequences (naming them members) substantially certain to result from the act? Again, yes.
Kind of self-evident. The rest of the elements are rather obvious. No one in any filing has claimed that the specified remedy (equitable remedy) is invalid -- the suits are simply 'you cant sue me'. They dont reach the merits of the bylaw provisions in any way except for 'is arbitration acceptable'.
The more harsh level requires a second 'intent' as a malice component --- that is they must show that the acts were aimed at inducing the breachers to specifically breach. I would agree with you that the malice level of TI is harder to show --- but again here you have:
a) a presumptively valid contract, and no one is fighting in court about the validity of the contract except for one piece -- can arbitration take place;
b) an willful and intentional act that interferes with that contract (going to be real hard for the SBC to put on blinders and say they had no earthly idea there was a contract);
c) damages resulting from that action; again kind of hard to say that an immediate breach of this sort doesnt have damages.
and back to you.
Not correct about no one challenging if a contract exists. The Mississippi IHL (which governs all universities in Miss.) is alleging that they (the IHL) did not approve it.
Thanks for the correction, I hadnt read the Mississippi complaint.
I assume then that the people who executed the membership agreement by USM lied about them being able to accept the agreement?
Yet they collected monies on the contract all this time..... Do you think they will offer to disgorge that then if there was no contract at all, ever?
Nice work! "Disgorge", well done. Keep up the good work!! #winning
|
|
03-06-2022 08:01 PM |
|
FAU Connoisseur!
1st String
Posts: 2,216
Joined: May 2019
Reputation: 1469
I Root For: #CometotheFAU
Location:
|
RE: SBC3 on SBC Schdeule
(03-02-2022 05:31 PM)Tech80 Wrote: I think most of us would agree if the SB3's early departure caused CUSA to drop down below the minimum NCAA required number....such as let's say CUSA was currently 9 members and three wanted to depart causing the conference to cease to exist, well then, CUSA and the six remaining schools, in my made-up scenario, would suffer financial harm and have a case for securing damages.
But the reality is CUSA is going from 14 to 11 and really there is no appreciable damages. Settle this and move on.
I hope Jeepster Judy gets slam-dunked in court and FINALLY the goofy prezzes will fire her sorry ass! From the ashes of this mess a new league, CUSA 4.0, could arise in better shape and absent the worst commish in all of college athletics. There is always a measure of hope...ya know.
I disagree, as I had a lifetime dream of watching a game of each of the departing teams as C-USA members and made air, car rental and lodging arrangements to visit each of the schools thinking I had 14 months to do so...I will be filing an amicus curiae.
|
|
03-06-2022 08:06 PM |
|