- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- 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
Tortious interference? Curious why it has not been pursued.
Posted on 11/30/25 at 8:23 am
Posted on 11/30/25 at 8:23 am
This is not Kiffin speciic but refers to the several times this happens every year.
If a school whose coach is poached wanted to really stir it up, why could they not file a suit alleging fortious interference with a contract?
From my understanding, six things are required:
-The existence of a contractual relationship or beneficial business relationship between two parties.
-Knowledge of that relationship by a third party.
Intent of the third party to induce a party to the relationship to breach the relationship.
-Lack of any privilege on the part of the third party to induce such a breach.
-The contractual relationship is breached.
-Damage to the party against whom the breach occurs.
Damages could be as simple as the monies spent hiring a new coach and staff.
Also, noting the story about Riley reps testing the water in Florida, why could a coach not be fired for cause for talking about another job?>
If a school whose coach is poached wanted to really stir it up, why could they not file a suit alleging fortious interference with a contract?
From my understanding, six things are required:
-The existence of a contractual relationship or beneficial business relationship between two parties.
-Knowledge of that relationship by a third party.
Intent of the third party to induce a party to the relationship to breach the relationship.
-Lack of any privilege on the part of the third party to induce such a breach.
-The contractual relationship is breached.
-Damage to the party against whom the breach occurs.
Damages could be as simple as the monies spent hiring a new coach and staff.
Also, noting the story about Riley reps testing the water in Florida, why could a coach not be fired for cause for talking about another job?>
This post was edited on 11/30/25 at 8:26 am
17
Posted on 11/30/25 at 8:26 am to Cell of Awareness
Get out of here with all that logical legal nonsense!
Posted on 11/30/25 at 8:26 am to Cell of Awareness
You are tortiously interfering with my Kiffmas festivities...
Posted on 11/30/25 at 8:27 am to Cell of Awareness
I'm sure Jimmy Sexton has never heard of this and doesn't know how to shop his clients within the confines of the law.
Posted on 11/30/25 at 8:27 am to Cell of Awareness
quote:
Knowledge of that relationship by a third party. Intent of the third party to induce a party to the relationship to breach the relationship.
Where is the breach?
Posted on 11/30/25 at 8:27 am to Cell of Awareness
Legal action is the last thing you want. Cost money and is normally always bad press.
Posted on 11/30/25 at 8:30 am to Cell of Awareness
Nerd alert
Posted on 11/30/25 at 8:34 am to Cell of Awareness
Go find Slow Flow Pro on the Poli Board and ask him.
Posted on 11/30/25 at 8:35 am to UpToPar
quote:
Where is the breach?
If Kiffin took the offer and left Ole Miss, that is a breach.
Posted on 11/30/25 at 8:36 am to Cell of Awareness
Aren't the buyout clauses tacit approval of poaching?
Posted on 11/30/25 at 8:36 am to csorre1
quote:
I'm sure Jimmy Sexton has never heard of this and doesn't know how to shop his clients within the confines of the law.
Or schools are so afraid to anger the guy who controls the SEC they demure.
Posted on 11/30/25 at 8:41 am to Cell of Awareness
quote:
If Kiffin took the offer and left Ole Miss, that is a breach.
Likely not a breach depending on how the contract is written. These contracts are usually written such that either party can terminate the contract early with a penalty (buyout to the coach if school terminates, or buyout to school if coach leaves). Neither would be considered a breach.
Posted on 11/30/25 at 8:42 am to Cell of Awareness
Posted on 11/30/25 at 8:44 am to Cell of Awareness
Louisiana does not really have tortious interference as a cause of action. It is a common law principle not adopted in LA.
Posted on 11/30/25 at 8:47 am to Cell of Awareness
quote:
Damages could be as simple as the monies spent hiring a new coach and staff.
The damages in this case is that Kiffin would forfeit his salary for the remainder of his Old Miss contract and Old Miss would not sustain any damages because they would have to incur the expense of hiring anyway when his contract expired on its own.
Posted on 11/30/25 at 8:47 am to Cell of Awareness
It's a contract of employment. Does anyone who offfers someone else a better job risk such a claim? Also, are you breaching an employment contract if you quit?
I don't know the answer, and it's an interesting question, but I'm guessing that employment contracts are going to fall under a different analysis for tortious interference claims.
I don't know the answer, and it's an interesting question, but I'm guessing that employment contracts are going to fall under a different analysis for tortious interference claims.
Posted on 11/30/25 at 8:49 am to SMU Tiger Fan
We do have it on paper, but the courts have narrowly interpreted the claim to the point that it’s essentially been litigated out of existence for practical purposes.
Posted on 11/30/25 at 8:49 am to Cell of Awareness
I had a similar thought about detrimental reliance. I think the issue, similar to the reason these bloated contracts with huge buyouts exist in the first place, is that higher ed attorneys aren't very good deal lawyers, and institutions don't want to pay top dollar for outside counsel.
Posted on 11/30/25 at 8:49 am to Cell of Awareness
Also, let’s assume you’re right and OM has a tortious interference claim….wouldn’t the inverse be true and coaches would have tortious interference claims against big money donors when they are fired? I don’t think anybody thinks that’s a good idea.
Posted on 11/30/25 at 8:55 am to Cell of Awareness
Your recitation of the elements of the tort omitted one key consideration. In most jurisdictions, the defendant has to intend to induce the breach AND the inducement has to be accomplished through "unlawful" means or conduct. There is nothing inherently "unlawful" about one market participant luring an employee away from another market participant with promises of greater pay or other benefits. That's just standard competition. Or put another way, competitors are "privileged" to compete in the market and take one another's employees, so long as it isn't effected through "unlawful" means.
That's the short answer for why you typically don't see TI claims in these scenarios.
That's the short answer for why you typically don't see TI claims in these scenarios.
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News