Question for the lawyers regarding Princewill

this is one of those situations where "anybody can sue anyone for anything" comes into play

Arguably could be seen as a abuse of process if they can prove malicious intent.

quote:

---

They don’t rule off vibes and feelings.

---

Form of service matters, particularly when it is used for a collateral purpose (like intimidation or harassment). It's not an easy claim to prove and depends whether they attempted service at his home or other less-intrusive means.

It doesn't demean the success of the service, but serving papers at someone's job, for example, in an attempt to bully them or harm their reputation is actionable.

While the timing of service may, probably is gamesmanship, I don't think it has any effect, at all, on what seems to be a breach of contract case. Whether or not a contract was breached generally comes down to the language of the contract and the actions that may or may not be considered a breach.

quote:

---

This would rub me the wrong way if I was a judge.

---

I suspect the lawsuit is filed in Mississippi where the contract was entered into, which is likely Lafayette Country (where Oxford is located). So even if there was a remote chance the timing of service may matter to a judge, I doubt it would matter to a Lafayette County judge.

I have been practicing for 22 years. I do not do contract law. From what I understand, neither Princewell nor Harper received any money. In a contract case, again just from my 2 law school contracts classes from my 1L year, plaintiffs (Ole Piss) have a duty to mitigate their damages. Basically, Ole Piss had to make reasonable efforts to avoid their financial losses. I think they clearly did that by signing other players to replace these two. It can be argued they have suffered zero financial loss or very little. As for waiting 8 months to file, unless Miss is different than most states, the SOL will be 2 or 3 years. Timing wise, I mean as long as the case itself is valid, I doubt a Mississippi judge will give Ole Piss a hard time. But if there is something in that contract that absolved our two guys of any liability, that could be definitely be a problem for Ole Piss.

quote:

---

does the perception of pettiness and/or gamesmanship work against the plaintiff’s case?

---

Contract law is generally objective, i.e., you look to the terms of the contract. A breach is a breach, and the subjective motivation of the plaintiff—even if spiteful or petty—does not automatically invalidate a legally binding agreement. However, in the real-world arena of civil litigation, blatant gamesmanship can absolutely work against a plaintiff.

If Ole Miss behaves in a highly punitive, theatrical manner—like intentionally timing the service of process to maximize a player's emotional distress or distraction right before a major rivalry game, which the folks in Oxfart did—it plays directly into the defense's hands. Defense counsel can point to this behavior as evidence that the university's overarching intent, including the buyout clause itself, is purely punitive.

Contracts carry an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. While filing a lawsuit to enforce a contract is not inherently bad faith, utilizing aggressive, hyper-public tactics to execute the litigation can blur the lines. It allows the defense to frame the plaintiff as an untrustworthy, vindictive actor rather than an aggrieved business partner

Just looking at the mechanics of this lawsuit, it’s a standard civil breach of contract claim, but with a massive SEC revenue-sharing twist.

For Ole Miss to actually win this, they have to prove three basic things: (1) the January 3rd contract was valid, (2) Umanmielen broke the 90-day retention clause by jumping to Baton Rouge in late January, and (3) that OM actually suffered $550k in damages.

But here are the two giant legal hurdles they have to clese:

(1) Did they even pay him?

If OM didn't actually hand over any cash before he entered the portal, they are going to have a brutal time proving they suffered half a million in actual harm. You can't usually enforce a massive buyout if no money actually changed hands.

(2) Is it just a penalty?

Courts routinely strike down "liquidated damages" if they figure out it's just an arbitrary penalty designed to trap a player on the roster rather than replace actual financial loss.

The bottom line: This isn't really about squeezing $550k out of a college kid's pocket. We already told OM to kick rocks back in March when they asked us to pay the buyout. This litigation looks like a backdoor maneuver to force that $550k onto our own revenue-sharing cap.

I feel this entire lawsuit is just to go through discovery to try and say lane tampered by contacting the players

Been ruling that way against Trump for10 frickin yes

quote:

---

The contract could have very well had some stipulated or liquidated damages clauses for early termination.

---

I think it did provide liquidated damages and attorneys fees as well