(03-04-2022 11:44 AM)FrankyP Wrote:  

(03-04-2022 11:36 AM)chiefsfan Wrote:  

(03-03-2022 04:30 PM)Tech80 Wrote:  At some point, and fairly soon, one side (CUSA) or the other (the SB3) is gonna be very disappointed. This will have some kind of resolution...well, actually, both sides may end up being disappointed as neither gets what it wants or at least, most of it. I can see CUSA winning the case on its merits and being awarded $1 for early-departure "damages" because there aren't any. Maybe then Jeepster Judy et al will actually sit down at the negotiating table, like business people and ADULTS!, and just settle this like they should have from the git-go.

Look at the bright side, 2024 will be here before you know it, and all of this will just be a comic footnote in all of our schools' history.

That is the risk CUSA took. I get the concept of bad faith, but no one has really ever fully tested the wait period in court as to whether its enforceable without consideration of a buyout.

They might get their way, but they do so with an inherit risk that a court might just declare that the whole waiting period concept is invalid, and all hell breaks loose.

Its why I think Judy ultimately settles

That was a good post T80, and I agree.

But I have an honest question: is it still (legally) considered to be ‘bad faith’ if one party lets the other know that they want out, realize that there will be a cost for this, and sincerely try to negotiate said cost? I’m not a lawyer, nor did I stay at a holiday inn last night, so just trying to understand.

I see the problem, you need to stay at a Holiday Inn Express to be awarded special insight.

(03-04-2022 11:44 AM)FrankyP Wrote:  

(03-04-2022 11:36 AM)chiefsfan Wrote:  

(03-03-2022 04:30 PM)Tech80 Wrote:  At some point, and fairly soon, one side (CUSA) or the other (the SB3) is gonna be very disappointed. This will have some kind of resolution...well, actually, both sides may end up being disappointed as neither gets what it wants or at least, most of it. I can see CUSA winning the case on its merits and being awarded $1 for early-departure "damages" because there aren't any. Maybe then Jeepster Judy et al will actually sit down at the negotiating table, like business people and ADULTS!, and just settle this like they should have from the git-go.

Look at the bright side, 2024 will be here before you know it, and all of this will just be a comic footnote in all of our schools' history.

That is the risk CUSA took. I get the concept of bad faith, but no one has really ever fully tested the wait period in court as to whether its enforceable without consideration of a buyout.

They might get their way, but they do so with an inherit risk that a court might just declare that the whole waiting period concept is invalid, and all hell breaks loose.

Its why I think Judy ultimately settles

That was a good post T80, and I agree.

But I have an honest question: is it still (legally) considered to be ‘bad faith’ if one party lets the other know that they want out, realize that there will be a cost for this, and sincerely try to negotiate said cost? I’m not a lawyer, nor did I stay at a holiday inn last night, so just trying to understand.

That's a good question, but one without a real clear answer. Sometimes bad faith is clear, like someone entering into a contract with no intentions of following through with the deal. Someone that knowingly is going to break the contract even before entering into it is clearly in bad faith. That's clearly not the case here as I don't think anyone believes that when the SB3 joined the conference they were already planning on breaking the contract. This is also not a case where a contract is broken without communication. The SB3 has been fairly clear that they were leaving the conference and then fairly clear WHEN they wanted to leave the conference once that decision was made. It's not like they waited until game time and just didn't show up. In most contracts in a case like this, when the breaching party acknowledges they are in the wrong and are willing to pay up to make it right, a number gets settled on, payment is made and folks move on. But with CUSA apparently not being willing to negotiate a buyout, but insisting that the bylaws be followed to a T with no chance of a monetary settlement, and only specific performance, i.e. staying the full 14 months, CUSA isn't allowing the SB3 to 'fix' things. Don't get me wrong, CUSA is under no obligation to allow the SB3 to pay their way out. But when this gets in front of a judge, and the SB3 show they were willing to pay to make CUSA whole, I imagine some of the 'bad faith' type arguments won't carry much water as while technically they were breaking the contract and thus were bad faith actors, they were willing to give monetary damages to fix their breech and were turned down.

There are a lot of moving parts here, from the sovereign immunity (which, for the record, I think is a loser, but I'm interested to see how it plays out), to the enforcement of the bylaws, to proper relief, etc. Both sides are going to try to paint the other in as bad of a light as possible, and I'm sure operating in bad faith will get thrown around. Just not sure how much it sticks given all the facts.