...basically, FSU states that their BOR are the only entity which can approve contracts for FSU (the FSU prez at the time was the one who signed the ACCGOR)... QUITE interesting...
SO, if the GOR is 'invalid', how does that work 'retroactively'? Can the ACC demand 'restitution' for all previous payouts for FSU home telecasts in the GOR timeframe?
This one is getting more interesting by the day...
IIRC - there are two different GoRs, signed by two different FSU presidents...the original in 2013, and the revised 20-year GORs signed in 2016. FSU lawyers are now suggesting a Keystone Cops strategy...our own administrative incompetence absolves us from adherence to the contracts that have been in effect for the past decade+.
(02-08-2024 11:27 AM)Wahoowa84 Wrote: IIRC - there are two different GoRs, signed by two different FSU presidents...the original in 2013, and the revised 20-year GORs signed in 2016. FSU lawyers are now suggesting a Keystone Cops strategy...our own administrative incompetence absolves us from adherence to the contracts that have been in effect for the past decade+.
It may be their best shot, everything else they have put forth hasn't worked.
This is not part of FSU’s argument in their lawsuit.
Even if it was part of FSU’s argument, it doesn’t matter because there’s the doctrine of apparent authority. That is, if the person signing the document is representing themselves as having the authority to sign that document (as would be the case with a university president), then the other parties signing the contract are able to rely on that representation and continue to enforce the contract. That’s to prevent exactly what Flug is trying to make into an argument where a party can retroactively say, “Oops - we didn’t follow this internal administrative process and the person signing that contract didn’t actually have authority to do so, which means the contract is invalid.” We would have gazillions of nuisance lawsuits if that argument were allowed outside of absolute bright line situations where there was a truly egregious representation (e.g. FSU’s janitor showed up and said that he had authority to sign the contract) that the other parties would have been unreasonable to rely upon it.
Plus, I’m fairly certain that the GOR has an explicit clause stating that the parties represent that they all have authority to bind their institutions to the contract. (This is pretty common boilerplate language.) This just explicitly reinforces what is already a common law doctrine and makes it completely airtight to prevent exactly what Flug is attempting.
Simply put, the “we didn’t have authority to sign this contract” argument doesn’t work. That’s why FSU didn’t even attempt that argument as any judge looking at it would be hostile to the rest of the suit since that argument is a complete waste of time.
(This post was last modified: 02-08-2024 11:49 AM by Frank the Tank.)
(02-08-2024 11:46 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote: This is not part of FSU’s argument in their lawsuit,
Even if it was part of FSU’s argument, it doesn’t matter because there’s the doctrine of apparent authority. That is, if the person signing the document is representing themselves as having the authority to sign that document (as would be the case with a university president), then the other parties signing the contract are able to rely on that representation. That’s to prevent exactly what Flug is trying to make into an argument where a party can retroactively say, “Oops - we didn’t follow this internal administrative process and the person signing that contract didn’t actually have authority to do so, which means the contract is invalid.” We would have gazillions of nuisance lawsuits if that argument were allowed outside of absolute bright line situations where there was a truly egregious representation (e.g. FSU’s janitor showed up and said that he had authority to sign the contract) that the other parties would have been unreasonable to rely upon it.
Plus, I’m fairly certain that the GOR has an explicit clause stating that the parties represent that they all have authority to bind their institutions to the contract. (This is pretty common boilerplate language.) This just explicitly reinforces what is already a common law doctrine.
Simply put, the “we didn’t have authority to sign this contract” argument doesn’t work. That’s FSU didn’t even attempt that argument as any judge looking at it would be hostile to the rest of the suit since that argument is a complete waste of time.
FSU Board of Trustees not signing the Grant of Rights has become part of their argument to have the case thrown out in Mecklenburg county. This was broken last night by Matt Baker of Tampa Bay Times. This is new information Frank.!
(02-08-2024 11:46 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote: This is not part of FSU’s argument in their lawsuit.
Even if it was part of FSU’s argument, it doesn’t matter because there’s the doctrine of apparent authority. That is, if the person signing the document is representing themselves as having the authority to sign that document (as would be the case with a university president), then the other parties signing the contract are able to rely on that representation and continue to enforce the contract. That’s to prevent exactly what Flug is trying to make into an argument where a party can retroactively say, “Oops - we didn’t follow this internal administrative process and the person signing that contract didn’t actually have authority to do so, which means the contract is invalid.” We would have gazillions of nuisance lawsuits if that argument were allowed outside of absolute bright line situations where there was a truly egregious representation (e.g. FSU’s janitor showed up and said that he had authority to sign the contract) that the other parties would have been unreasonable to rely upon it.
Plus, I’m fairly certain that the GOR has an explicit clause stating that the parties represent that they all have authority to bind their institutions to the contract. (This is pretty common boilerplate language.) This just explicitly reinforces what is already a common law doctrine and makes it completely airtight to prevent exactly what Flug is attempting.
Simply put, the “we didn’t have authority to sign this contract” argument doesn’t work. That’s why FSU didn’t even attempt that argument as any judge looking at it would be hostile to the rest of the suit since that argument is a complete waste of time.
That's kind of the same idea with the ACC commish extending ESPN's option without getting proper approval. It is likely still valid for ESPN even if it might give FSU cause for action against the ACC.
(02-08-2024 11:46 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote: This is not part of FSU’s argument in their lawsuit,
Even if it was part of FSU’s argument, it doesn’t matter because there’s the doctrine of apparent authority. That is, if the person signing the document is representing themselves as having the authority to sign that document (as would be the case with a university president), then the other parties signing the contract are able to rely on that representation. That’s to prevent exactly what Flug is trying to make into an argument where a party can retroactively say, “Oops - we didn’t follow this internal administrative process and the person signing that contract didn’t actually have authority to do so, which means the contract is invalid.” We would have gazillions of nuisance lawsuits if that argument were allowed outside of absolute bright line situations where there was a truly egregious representation (e.g. FSU’s janitor showed up and said that he had authority to sign the contract) that the other parties would have been unreasonable to rely upon it.
Plus, I’m fairly certain that the GOR has an explicit clause stating that the parties represent that they all have authority to bind their institutions to the contract. (This is pretty common boilerplate language.) This just explicitly reinforces what is already a common law doctrine.
Simply put, the “we didn’t have authority to sign this contract” argument doesn’t work. That’s FSU didn’t even attempt that argument as any judge looking at it would be hostile to the rest of the suit since that argument is a complete waste of time.
FSU Board of Trustees not signing the Grant of Rights has become part of their argument to have the case thrown out in Mecklenburg county. This was broken last night by Matt Baker of Tampa Bay Times. This is new information Frank.!
Ok - I see that here.
My analysis doesn’t change other than FSU apparently does want the judge to get annoyed at the rest of their claim.
(02-08-2024 11:46 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote: This is not part of FSU’s argument in their lawsuit.
Even if it was part of FSU’s argument, it doesn’t matter because there’s the doctrine of apparent authority. That is, if the person signing the document is representing themselves as having the authority to sign that document (as would be the case with a university president), then the other parties signing the contract are able to rely on that representation and continue to enforce the contract. That’s to prevent exactly what Flug is trying to make into an argument where a party can retroactively say, “Oops - we didn’t follow this internal administrative process and the person signing that contract didn’t actually have authority to do so, which means the contract is invalid.” We would have gazillions of nuisance lawsuits if that argument were allowed outside of absolute bright line situations where there was a truly egregious representation (e.g. FSU’s janitor showed up and said that he had authority to sign the contract) that the other parties would have been unreasonable to rely upon it.
Plus, I’m fairly certain that the GOR has an explicit clause stating that the parties represent that they all have authority to bind their institutions to the contract. (This is pretty common boilerplate language.) This just explicitly reinforces what is already a common law doctrine and makes it completely airtight to prevent exactly what Flug is attempting.
Simply put, the “we didn’t have authority to sign this contract” argument doesn’t work. That’s why FSU didn’t even attempt that argument as any judge looking at it would be hostile to the rest of the suit since that argument is a complete waste of time.
That's kind of the same idea with the ACC commish extending ESPN's option without getting proper approval. It is likely still valid for ESPN even if it might give FSU cause for action against the ACC.
Yes, ESPN is signing the contract with the ACC and thus can rely upon the ACC commissioner having the authority to sign it. ESPN can then enforce the contract regardless of whether FSU thinks that it should have been able to approve it or not.
(02-08-2024 11:46 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote: This is not part of FSU’s argument in their lawsuit.
Even if it was part of FSU’s argument, it doesn’t matter because there’s the doctrine of apparent authority. That is, if the person signing the document is representing themselves as having the authority to sign that document (as would be the case with a university president), then the other parties signing the contract are able to rely on that representation and continue to enforce the contract. That’s to prevent exactly what Flug is trying to make into an argument where a party can retroactively say, “Oops - we didn’t follow this internal administrative process and the person signing that contract didn’t actually have authority to do so, which means the contract is invalid.” We would have gazillions of nuisance lawsuits if that argument were allowed outside of absolute bright line situations where there was a truly egregious representation (e.g. FSU’s janitor showed up and said that he had authority to sign the contract) that the other parties would have been unreasonable to rely upon it.
Plus, I’m fairly certain that the GOR has an explicit clause stating that the parties represent that they all have authority to bind their institutions to the contract. (This is pretty common boilerplate language.) This just explicitly reinforces what is already a common law doctrine and makes it completely airtight to prevent exactly what Flug is attempting.
Simply put, the “we didn’t have authority to sign this contract” argument doesn’t work. That’s why FSU didn’t even attempt that argument as any judge looking at it would be hostile to the rest of the suit since that argument is a complete waste of time.
That's kind of the same idea with the ACC commish extending ESPN's option without getting proper approval. It is likely still valid for ESPN even if it might give FSU cause for action against the ACC.
Yes, ESPN is signing the contract with the ACC and thus can rely upon the ACC commissioner having the authority to sign it. ESPN can then enforce the contract regardless of whether FSU thinks that it should have been able to approve it or not.
I can see there is no case in the claim that the President’s signature instead of the Board’s invalidates Florida St’s obligation to the GOR. If that was really a valid concern, the Board should have tried to stop the GOR as soon as it was announced instead of waiting eight years.
I am more disturbed that none of the ACC school’s may have not signed off on the GOR extension. Perhaps there was at least an oral agreement (documented in minutes of a meeting perhaps) to give that authority to the commissioner. But it seems that each school should have a copy of the signed GOR extension. It still boggles my mind that the Mag007 had to perform a secret mission to try to obtain a copy.
NJTerp
(This post was last modified: 02-08-2024 02:07 PM by Pat125.)
(02-09-2024 09:55 AM)ArmoredUpKnight Wrote: If that's true, wouldn't FSU owe the ACC all the media money they paid under false pretense...
Yes! It is a maneuver to try and get the Judge to allow the case to be heard in Florida & not NC
But you are correct they would have to pay back all the money back if it is ruled that way, So the question become what is cheaper 572M in future dollars or what has already been paid?
The idea that the FSU pres didn't have the authority to sign it might have been a plausible reason to invalidate it... as soon as the BOR found out about it in 2016.
(02-09-2024 01:18 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote: The idea that the FSU pres didn't have the authority to sign it might have been a plausible reason to invalidate it... as soon as the BOR found out about it in 2016.
The BOT knew about it all these years. Discussed it frequently. All while making no attempt to clarify that they didn't give the President permission to sign off on this exact contract.
I can't believe so many people buy this as a valid defense. I might believe they were serious if they brought criminal fraud charges against the President for signing without authority.
(02-09-2024 05:41 PM)4x4hokies Wrote: The BOT knew about it all these years. Discussed it frequently. All while making no attempt to clarify that they didn't give the President permission to sign off on this exact contract.
I can't believe so many people buy this as a valid defense. I might believe they were serious if they brought criminal fraud charges against the President for signing without authority.
It’s not a valid defense.
As I’ve stated, there is the doctrine of apparent authority as a general matter and then the agreement itself almost certainly has an explicit representation that each party is authorized to sign the agreement on top of it.
Once again, the law *doesn’t* want people going around saying, “Oops - we actually didn’t have authority to sign that contract, so it goes away!” Otherwise, that would be brought up in virtually every contract case and that would just make our slow legal system even slower.
The whole point of the doctrine is that it doesn’t matter if you didn’t take internal administrative steps to sign a contract properly: if you represent yourself as having authority to sign the contract (particularly when the lawyers reviewing the agreement will see the standard representation that each party is authorized to sign the contract), then the other parties can rely on that representation and the contract is enforceable.
(This post was last modified: 02-09-2024 06:09 PM by Frank the Tank.)
(02-09-2024 09:55 AM)ArmoredUpKnight Wrote: If that's true, wouldn't FSU owe the ACC all the media money they paid under false pretense...
Not being a lawyer, I would say "no", because what the ACC paid and what FSU provided was apparently indistinguishable from what they would have paid and received under a GOR. The ACC would have suffered no harm during those years, I think.
(This post was last modified: 02-09-2024 06:17 PM by quo vadis.)
/
...ACC GOR never signed by FSU???
