re: LSU Admits it Altered Chavis Contract

All tiger fans need to understand this fact.


LSU will be mediocre at BEST as long as either F King Alexander and/or Alleva are at LSU

Read

The

Sticky

Derp

Jill Craft is a good attorney and is going to go in dry on LSU. The defamation claim is BS, but you have to try something.

LSU needs to cut its losses.

quote:

---

Gonna be a some dark years for football in the near future.

---

welcome back 1990's.

Please fire Alleva. He is no friend of LSU football.

I know she is Chavis' attorney.

What case does she have?

quote:

---

So the administration changed the buyout clause after Chavis signed the agreement. What the hell. Do we officially have the most inept athletic administration in the history of major college sports?

---

When is enough, enough? FIRE ALLEVA IMMEDIATELY

quote:

---

quote:

---

Give me an example where it's unethical to "secretly and unilaterally alter the terms of a contract" when you are not trying to enforce it.

---

If you show it to me and act like it is what we agreed to. Even though you didn't take me to court to enforce it you tried to slip one past me hoping I wouldn't notice. I've seen that happen before. It undermines trust, can end long business relationships, and on occasion get someone's arse kicked - all without anyone asking a court to enforce anything.

---

So you ARE talking about trying to enforce it. You are talking about trying to "compel observance of or compliance with" an altered contract. That's the definition of "enforce."

In your hypothetical, you're talking about private enforcement rather than court enforcement, but you're still talking about trying to "compel observance of or compliance with" the altered contract. Even if it's "all without anyone asking a court to enforce anything," you're talking about one of the parties trying to enforce the contract without resorting to the judicial system.

Contracts are not magical documents. They're just not. Many contractual relationships are just one event deals. A guy hires someone to install a sound system, and there's just one contract.

However, some contractual relationships are multi-event or multi-year interactions. The relationship evolves and the contractual terms evolve. In many of these relationships, contract terms are continually being renegotiated and altered. Does a party get a raise or a bonus, does a party have new job duties, is the contract extended, etc.

It is not at all unusual for a party to alter a contract and seek consent or ratification of the alteration at a later time.

It does not matter at all if one party alters a contract. It's not illegal, it's not immoral, it's not unethical as long as the party is not trying to enforce the unauthorized alterations.

I would imagine the case gets resolved before the phone records are provided.