utisdabomb12
V.I.P.
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2013
- Messages
- 8,338
By registering with us, you'll be able to discuss, share and private message with other members of our Texas Longhorns message board community.
SignUp Now!Here is the complaint:I'm not sure how contracts work, no lawyer here.![]()
It says that Chavis turned in his 30 day notice on January 5th, effectively making his last day with LSU February 4th.
Does that mean A&M was sending an LSU employee out to recruit on their behalf for the last month of the recruiting cycle?
Chavis was on the in home visit on Jan 28 to Daylon Mack, where Chavis was wearing an a&m shirt.Here is the complaint:
http://media.graytvinc.com/documents/john_chavis_lawsuit.pdf
Chavis could unilaterally terminate his contract with 30 days notice, so once he turned in his notice on Jan 5, the clock began to tick on the expiration of his contract. Until that clock ran out, he was still contractually obligated to LSU. Aggy and Chavis are saying Chavis did nothing connected to TAMU athletics until Feb 12 and therefore Chavis owes nothing, since his contract would have been terminated with less than 11 months remaining. The key date here is Feb 5, the date on which, under Chavis' notice, his contract would have terminated. LSU is saying that prior to Feb 5 (30 days after Chavis gave notice) Chavis performed some act that constituted a constructive breach of his contract and therefore they are due no less than $400,000 in liquidated damages.
If Chavis discussed TAMU defensive strategy, potential TAMU recruits, appeared in public in a TAMU logo or any of a number of other acts, he could very well be held in breach of his contract and have to pay the $400,000 in liquidated damages for early termination of the contract. I haven't read Chavis' contract, but if the $400,000 was just liquidated damages for early termination, he may well be liable for additional damages for the constructive breach. Additionally, if TAMU induced Chavis to constructively breach his contract, TAMU could be liable for damages for tortious interference with a contract. TAMU could talk Chavis into giving notice and terminating his contract in accordance with its terms, but TAMU could not induce Chavis to breach the contract without facing potential liability.
Yep. While he was still legally contractually obligated to LSU.Chavis was on the in home visit on Jan 28 to Daylon Mack, where Chavis was wearing an a&m shirt.
i wouldnt be surprised if LSU countersues the daylights out of him...get out the popcorn...Yep. While he was still legally contractually obligated to LSU.
The next move we should expect is a notice of removal filed by LSU to have it removed to federal court in Houston. They might try to have it removed to the Middle District of Louisiana. There is no way they will allow this to be heard in state court in Bryan, Texas.
Just hope LSU countersues and claims tortious interference. If that happens, this will be a ton of fun to watch.
Probably wasn't the best idea to be taking pictures recruiting players in aggy gear— Twitter API (@twitterapi) November 7, 2011