- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
OKTC - Baylor's lawsuit has no merit
Posted on 9/7/11 at 12:04 pm
Posted on 9/7/11 at 12:04 pm
LINK
All interesting points.. here are some of the highlights..
All interesting points.. here are some of the highlights..
quote:
4. Can Baylor even sue the SEC under a count of tortious interference?
This gets in to the privity of contract issue.
In its most basic sense, Baylor's contract is not with Texas A&M, it's with the Big 12 conference. Look at my example up above, Texas A&M's contract is with the Big 12. And the Big 12 has agreed not to sue.
So how can Baylor sue the SEC when Baylor isn't a party to the initial contract, the Big 12 and Texas A&M are.
What Baylor is trying to do is sue the SEC for interfering with Texas A&M's contract with the Big 12.
So the question becomes, is Baylor a party to Texas A&M's contract with the Big 12?
If Baylor isn't a party to the contract, and many judges would probably say it isn't, then there's no foundation for Baylor to sue upon interfering with the contract. Especially when, as is this case here, the other member instititutions contracts remain unimpacted.
quote:
5. Baylor has no damages due to Texas A&M's departure.
This is not intended to be a law review article -- if it was you'd already be asleep and baffled, if you're already both anyway, apologies -- but in order for there to be a tort claim of tortious interference there also have to be damages. (We've already seen that there are questions of whether there's a contract to sue under anyway).
What are Baylor's damages from Texas A&M's departure?
There are none.
I guarantee you the television payouts will remain the same from the network partners -- especially from ESPN which is terrified of being sued for inducing A&M to bolt to the SEC. I've been telling you this for weeks. Read why ESPN's position is so complicated here.
Without damages you can't have a claim of tortious interference. And I'll be damned if I can come up with actual damages for Baylor.
So now you've got a serious issue with whether Baylor has a contract to sue under and no damages.
Which brings me back to my original premise, there is no basis for a legitimate lawsuit by Baylor against the SEC or Mike Slive. Now, again, that doesn't mean a lawsuit won't be filed, just that there isn't a legitimate reason for one to be filed.
What's really happened here is simple, Baylor thought the Big 12 would survive without Texas A&M a week ago. Now it's worried that other schools are bolting for the Pac 12. So it's trying to throw up as many roadblocks as possible to the dissolution of the Big 12.
Unfortunately for Baylor suing the SEC and Mike Slive isn't a viable option.
This post was edited on 9/7/11 at 12:06 pm
4
Posted on 9/7/11 at 12:04 pm to GerryDiNardo
Posted on 9/7/11 at 12:17 pm to NorthshoreTiger76
I'm still looking for evidence guaranteeing "BU" plans on suing the "SEC".
But that's a moot point...all BU has to do is not sign the waiver...which could be old information?
What's changed?
But that's a moot point...all BU has to do is not sign the waiver...which could be old information?
What's changed?
Posted on 9/7/11 at 12:18 pm to BaylorTiger
quote:
What's changed?
Nothing has changed and that's the problem.
Posted on 9/7/11 at 12:30 pm to GerryDiNardo
hmmm.... Clay Travis, a sports blogger who practices law on the side. or Ken Starr, former U.S. Solicitor General, Federal Judge, & Dean of Pepperdine Law School.... President Bill Clinton spent millions on a legal defense that said a personal affair w/ an intern had no basis to be part of special investigation of a real estate development in Arkansas.... how did that work out for him?
in the end, i think Baylor stands down because OU, OSU, UTx and possible TTU will make moves that will make their potential suit groundless. and they may be the beneficiary of the exit penalties.
also, who appointed Ken Starr Solicitor General? George H.W. Bush. Where is the George H.W. Bush Presidential Library located?... College Station, TX. Hmmmm.
in the end, i think Baylor stands down because OU, OSU, UTx and possible TTU will make moves that will make their potential suit groundless. and they may be the beneficiary of the exit penalties.
also, who appointed Ken Starr Solicitor General? George H.W. Bush. Where is the George H.W. Bush Presidential Library located?... College Station, TX. Hmmmm.
Posted on 9/7/11 at 12:42 pm to winyahpercy
quote:
in the end, i think Baylor stands down because OU, OSU, UTx and possible TTU will make moves that will make their potential suit groundless. and they may be the beneficiary of the exit penalties.
I agree with this but it comes down to this waiver thing...BU still needs to sign it...they don't need to sue anyone. They're going to sign it...
quote:
also, who appointed Ken Starr Solicitor General? George H.W. Bush. Where is the George H.W. Bush Presidential Library located?... College Station, TX. Hmmmm.
Interesting way to connect the dots but Ken Starr did not have this kind of "relationship" with BU at that time...he's only been president for a few years..so uhhhh...ok?
Posted on 9/7/11 at 12:42 pm to GerryDiNardo
Excellent post. Nice to get some thought from someone with legal experience. I practiced law for about 15 years myself and havent picked up any law books in a while since I changed careers but even if Baylor tried to sue , i just dont believe there would be much merit to said lawsuit. 
This post was edited on 9/7/11 at 12:43 pm
Posted on 9/7/11 at 12:48 pm to GerryDiNardo
Not sure I necessarily agree with his analysis here - Baylor has a contract with the Big 12-2. Just because the Big 12-2 releases any claim against the SEC (assuming that's the only thing Beebe's letter did) doesn't mean Baylor does as well. I don't think Baylor would sue on a TI based on the contract between A&M and the Big 12-2 (as Travis suggests) but the contract between Baylor and the Big 12-2. And since it's valid, and the SEC is not a party to it, Baylor could claim TI against the SEC assuming Baylor can prove that the SEC induced or caused the Big 12-2 to breach its contract with Baylor (by ceasing to exist I suppose).
Maybe I'm missing something....
Maybe I'm missing something....
Posted on 9/7/11 at 1:19 pm to OrangeBlood
quote:
Maybe I'm missing something....
In order for there to be TI there has to be some damages to Baylor. There are no damages as it's been stated repeatedly from multiple different places that the Big XII would stay together after A&M left. Now it has come out that OU is going to go somewhere else.. this is the school Baylor should be suing.
Posted on 9/7/11 at 1:23 pm to GerryDiNardo
Oh I agree that the damages issue probably kills the TI claim - but that was Travis's second reason. I just don't think his first reason (contract privity) is correct.
Surprised we haven't heard a leak out of the supposed Big 12-2 conference call.....maybe Baylor can be bought off and sign a release.
Surprised we haven't heard a leak out of the supposed Big 12-2 conference call.....maybe Baylor can be bought off and sign a release.
Posted on 9/7/11 at 1:26 pm to OrangeBlood
quote:
Surprised we haven't heard a leak out of the supposed Big 12-2 conference call.....maybe Baylor can be bought off and sign a release.
More likely, they'll be told that all they're doing is killing any chance the Big XII stays together and will be forced to get in line.
Posted on 9/7/11 at 2:08 pm to OrangeBlood
quote:
Baylor could claim TI against the SEC assuming Baylor can prove that the SEC induced or caused the Big 12-2 to breach its contract with Baylor (by ceasing to exist I suppose).
You may have a point here. Baylor may try to argue that the A&M/SEC arrangement caused a "domino effect", whereby several of the other members (acting in their own interests) decided to look elsewhere, but would not have done so had A&M and the SEC not discussed a move.
Posted on 9/7/11 at 2:15 pm to Quidam65
quote:
Baylor may try to argue that the A&M/SEC arrangement caused a "domino effect"
A&M, or the SEC could probably argue that Nebraska & Colorado, or even Texas (LHN) started the domino effect.
Posted on 9/7/11 at 2:27 pm to Clockwatcher68
quote:
A&M, or the SEC could probably argue that Nebraska & Colorado, or even Texas (LHN) started the domino effect.
As far as Nebraska and Colorado the passage of a year may negate that argument, but it's one to make in defense.
The LHN may be a stronger argument, especially with its attempted metamorphasis from only one OOC game to one OOC game PLUS one conference game PLUS broadcasting high-school games. A&M could argue that LHN would have "stacked the deck" in terms of revenue so heavily in favor of Texas, that (outside of OU) NONE of the remaining schools could have ever competed on a regular basis.
Page 1 of 1
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News