- 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
re: LSU Admits it Altered Chavis Contract
Posted on 12/17/15 at 2:31 pm to beauchristopher
Posted on 12/17/15 at 2:31 pm to beauchristopher
Lol Ross got most of u again.
0
Posted on 12/17/15 at 2:33 pm to Pax Regis
quote:
the school contends the alterations were “nominal” and did not affect its terms.
If the changes had no effect, why make them?
Posted on 12/17/15 at 2:33 pm to Pax Regis
That's what I know as well, and that's why I asked. I'm thinking it was requests for admission, and that the simple question that was asked had to be admitted, but that the admission doesn't necessarily mean shite.
Posted on 12/17/15 at 2:34 pm to beauchristopher
Well, there are two things clear in this thread.
1. Nobody except Mac actually read the article. The clauses of the contract that were changed are quoted in the article. So we should probably stop wondering what was changed.
2. There are a lot of armchair lawyers on tRant.
1. Nobody except Mac actually read the article. The clauses of the contract that were changed are quoted in the article. So we should probably stop wondering what was changed.
2. There are a lot of armchair lawyers on tRant.
Posted on 12/17/15 at 2:34 pm to BayouBengals03
quote:
Like I said, it could be proven to be correct and justified. But that's the conclusion everyone is jumping to off the bat for sure.
Dude, Louisiana has long history of shady dealings. I've said Alleva sucks from day 1. This whole Miles thing didn't change my tune. It stayed the same.
Posted on 12/17/15 at 2:34 pm to Pax Regis
quote:This has to be on the most obtuse posts I've ever seen on this site, and that's saying a lot.
But you cannot enforce any of it as a contract against the other party without their agreement. The basis of a contract is mutual agreement. You cannot claim that someone agreed to language you wrote in on your own without their agreement which is typically and historically signified by a signature applied after the entire document is completed.
I have repeatedly stated that LSU cannot enforce an alteration without the consent of the other party.
However, no one has said that LSU is attempting to enforce the altered contract terms.
The original contract, as signed by Chavis, is enforceable. The unauthorized alterations are ignored by the court.
Posted on 12/17/15 at 2:35 pm to ATL-TIGER-732
because they didn't want to look stupid for having a dumbass typo or random clip of a sentence that got in there by mistake. shite like that happens.
The real question is whether the alteration was relevant to the issues in dispute in the lawsuit.
If not, then Chavis's lawyers are fricking SCUM for acting like this is anything.
The real question is whether the alteration was relevant to the issues in dispute in the lawsuit.
If not, then Chavis's lawyers are fricking SCUM for acting like this is anything.
Posted on 12/17/15 at 2:36 pm to zsav77
quote:
No shite. The point was that LSU can't alter the contract, then sue Chavis for breach of contract when he didn't agree to the altered contract to begin with.
I don't think it is clear that is what is going on.
But, you should quit the pissing match. Neither of you know the facts...and I'm sure both of you agree that if LSU unilaterally altered the contract and is suing on the basis of the altered contract that LSU isn't going to win.
Posted on 12/17/15 at 2:37 pm to Pax Regis
quote:
You cannot claim that someone agreed to language you wrote in on your own without their agreement which is typically and historically signified by a signature applied after the entire document is completed.
Sometime silence can signify acceptance. For example say Chavis was aware of the changes immediately after the changes were made, he does not reject the changes either orally or in writing. Rather, he continues to fulfill his job duties and he accepts his pay. Has he accepted the changes? I would say yes he did accept the changes.
Posted on 12/17/15 at 2:37 pm to Salviati
quote:
LSU might be saying, "Yes, we altered the contract, but Chavis consented to the changes."
OR LSU might be saying, "Yes, we altered the contract, but we are seeking to enforce it as it was originally written."
The article is not clear at all.
Posted on 12/17/15 at 2:38 pm to PennyPacker
quote:The issue is, as I've repeatedly stated, is whether LSU is trying to enforce the unauthorized alterations.
Since the suit is specifically about the buyout provision and since LSU admitted to altering the buyout provision that would mean they altered and didn't inform Chavis of the changes. How is that not unethical?
If LSU is not trying to enforce the unauthorized alterations, there is no problem legally or ethically.
quote:I have practiced contract litigation for decades. I wholly understand the situation given the limited facts.
I will say this, let someone in a business situation do this to you then I would like to know how you really feel.
Posted on 12/17/15 at 2:38 pm to Salviati
quote:
LSU might be saying, "Yes, we altered the contract, but Chavis consented to the changes."
Which would typically have his initials next to the changes correct?
Posted on 12/17/15 at 2:38 pm to dgnx6
quote:
Dude, Louisiana has long history of shady dealings. I've said Alleva sucks from day
Not sure Alleva had anything to do with it
Posted on 12/17/15 at 2:39 pm to Pax Regis
quote:True.
You also cannot make them hold up in court.
quote:bullshite.
Unilaterally changing contract terms is definitely unethical.
Posted on 12/17/15 at 2:40 pm to Pax Regis
quote:
Hey look LSU's lawyer actually makes a comment that tries to explain how this is not that big a deal. Seems smart to me.
This was never the argument.
You said there was NO REASON not to comment on it. Plenty of parties do in this situation, plenty don't. And in this case, they originally declined to comment and then followed it up later. What does that say to you?
It made sense not to comment on it. They apparently felt strong enough about their position despite the defamation lawsuit to comment.
Not speaking out isn't admission of guilt or some terrible logical reach like you were claiming
People made the same claim about collins during that whole process
This post was edited on 12/17/15 at 2:45 pm
Posted on 12/17/15 at 2:40 pm to Salviati
i mean, did/does Chavis not have a copy of the agreement that he signed, showing exactly what he signed?
wtf is this shite?
and what is the difference between:
“between 24 months to 36 months”
and “between the first day of the 36th month remaining to the last day of the 24th month remaining.”
is that a difference of a month, or is it no difference?
He also changed language in the buyout dates from “between 11 months and 23 months” to “between the first day of the 23rd month remaining to the last day of the 12th month.”
wtf is this shite?
and what is the difference between:
“between 24 months to 36 months”
and “between the first day of the 36th month remaining to the last day of the 24th month remaining.”
is that a difference of a month, or is it no difference?
He also changed language in the buyout dates from “between 11 months and 23 months” to “between the first day of the 23rd month remaining to the last day of the 12th month.”
This post was edited on 12/17/15 at 2:44 pm
Posted on 12/17/15 at 2:42 pm to dgnx6
How do we know this is Alleva's fault?
We don't know anything yet. People on here love to jump to conclusions. I prefer to wait and see what happens.
But there's no question that our fan base is just in a negative mindset and is looking to assign blame as fast as we possibly can on every single issue that comes up.
We don't know anything yet. People on here love to jump to conclusions. I prefer to wait and see what happens.
But there's no question that our fan base is just in a negative mindset and is looking to assign blame as fast as we possibly can on every single issue that comes up.
Posted on 12/17/15 at 2:44 pm to Pax Regis
quote:
But you cannot enforce any of it as a contract against the other party without their agreement. The basis of a contract is mutual agreement.
You are arguing with yourself. Nobody is arguing that point.
Posted on 12/17/15 at 2:45 pm to BayouBengals03
quote:
But there's no question that our fan base is just in a negative mindset and is looking to assign blame as fast as we possibly can on every single issue that comes up.
south louisiana people are, speaking generally, some negative, pessimistic people.
It is what it is.
Posted on 12/17/15 at 2:45 pm to Topwater Trout
quote:There are many ways to consent to altered contractual terms. For example, one might initial the alterations. However, the alterations or the altered document might be incorporated by reference in a subsequent document.quote:Which would typically have his initials next to the changes correct?
LSU might be saying, "Yes, we altered the contract, but Chavis consented to the changes."
Page 9 of 13
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News