(03-15-2013 07:50 AM)Tallgrass Wrote:  

(03-15-2013 06:41 AM)TerryD Wrote:  Quotes mean jack. Only someone who has actually read a legal agreement can comment on it with any accuracy.

As a lawyer, I know of nobody in the legal profession who would give an opinion on it without reviewing the document.

Lawyers also know better than to ever speak in absolutes.

Finally, all lawyers know that all contracts are made to be broken and draft them on the assumption that a breach will occur.

Until someone posts the actual document, everything said about it is conjecture and talking without knowing.

I am not an attorney. But it seems to me that the ACC will not win against Maryland since Maryland did not agree to the binding ACC document to begin with.

But the B12 situation is unique because each and every B12 school signed it volunarily. It seems on this board, many say this contract is invalid. But contracts have to be vaild in a court of law, if they weren't, how could business operate in this country? The contract is a facilitator, it seems to me. Not some document to be ignored and/or thrown out because circumstances change.

All contacts are made to be broken. That is Contract Law 101 that law students learn the first day of class.

I just am pointing out that their may be clauses that deal with all types of situations, possibly including a school changing conferences or the conference dissolving.

No lawyer would make ironclad, certain statements about any contract he has reviewed.

None would make any statements about a contract he has not seen at all.

I can't make any statements one way or another. I haven't reviewed it.

I can't put any faith in quotes by other people who allegedly saw it either. Sorry. All of them may have agendas, spins to make and "misinformation" to spread. Right?

Doesn't this board always have folks telling us to never believe what anyone comes out and says about realignment topics?

I just don't put stock into anything allegedly "ironclad" in the legal arena. Show us the contract.