WAC sues FSU, Nevada and MWC

[BABYFACE]

1 Stunner has an agenda and you can tell when he includes that SDST and UNLV could be due damages because of the failed deal it prevented them from going to the WAC. Excuse me, those are MWC schools. 1 Stunner, which WAC school is your team?

 

[haroldskilley]

In order to prove tortious interference, the interference has to be wrongful. You have a right to interfere with contractual relations if you have an equal or superior right in the subject matter to that of the other party. This happens all the time between business competitors, don't see a difference here. I anticipate BYU gets brought into this suit by the MWC for breach of fiduciary duties to its conference mates.

You could be right... but, I'm not sure that BYU owes any fiduciary duties to the MWC---no contractual relationship, and we see that schools can leave conference at will (Utah) and can reorganize a conference and no precedent for punishment (example, MWC-5). Here are the elements of tortious interference (from Wikipedia):

• 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. (MWC had PRIVILEGE? or was their interference WRONGFUL?)
• The contractual relationship is breached.
• Damage to the party against whom the breach occurs.

Regardless, BYU will be brought in (under subpoena, if not voluntary) to testify in Court. Not sure if BYU will pursue this case as a party, though, unless sued as you've noted. Given the "right" of the MWC to save itself by interfering with WAC/BYU plans probably the main issue. (hence why I think the WAC has a 50/50 chance at succeeding with this). If WAC succeeds, effects could be interesting.

 

[haroldskilley]

1 Stunner has an agenda and you can tell when he includes that SDST and UNLV could be due damages because of the failed deal it prevented them from going to the WAC. Excuse me, those are MWC schools. 1 Stunner, which WAC school is your team?

My agenda in looking at this lawsuit is that I find this interesting from a legal standpoint. l I include those 2 schools because (without knowing the facts of the deal the WAC had) it could raise the damages award that the WAC is seeking. No point in trying to find some ulterior motive. You might as well save your time with the ad hominem analysis....

(note, I have not read the Complaint filed yet, so I am just guessing what the WAC will be doing with this).

 

[corpuschristifrog]

I don't see what action the MWC could countersue with... but who knows.

Same cause of action. Tortious interference.

 

[Fred Garvin]

If the WAC legal eagles have a suit, it should be with BYU. Didn't they agree to play non-football sports in the WAC and then back out of that deal? This crybaby case is the last act of a desperate man. Karl threw in the kitchen sink of claims, hoping the $5 Mil per team penalty might stick. The remains of the WAC is undoubtedly spending all their remaining money on legal fees in an end run to save their pitiful conference. How can they justify suing the MWC???? All we did was invite some schools to join our conference? How is that any different than Utah getting invited to join the Pac-10? If they uphold this, do we have a claim against BYU for "going independent" and joining another conference? Of course not. Hopefully the judge will throw this case out with the rest of the trash.

Meanwhile the WAC conspired with BYU and USU to lure a MWC team away by offering them who knows what. Torturous interference? - Pot meet kettle.

 

[FeistyFrog]

Contract: The $5 Million per school loyalty agreement signed (or oral agreement, which is also legally valid) by Fresno and Reno. Whether or not it had effect (see BYU agreeing) doesn't matter, as these two schools had already agreed, and contract was in process of being ratified by all parties (BYU).

Plaintiff: WAC

Defendant: MWC

Cause of Action: Tortious Interference with a Contractual Relationship (WAC v. MWC, with Fresno and Reno as parties that aided the MWC).

Explanation: http://en.wikipedia....us_interference

If the WAC wins, they are probably awarded money damages (meaning that Fresno and Reno still can leave). However, the money damages on MWC and Fresno and Reno might be significant; could be calculated at the loss of money revenue (TV Deal) MWC has caused the WAC, in losing Fresno, Reno, and BYU (maybe also UNLV and SDSU). Likelihood of success: 50/50.

I don't see what action the MWC could countersue with... but who knows.

Look out, he's citing Wikipedia!!!!

 

[dweller]

My agenda in looking at this lawsuit is that I find this interesting from a legal standpoint. l I include those 2 schools because (without knowing the facts of the deal the WAC had) it could raise the damages award that the WAC is seeking. No point in trying to find some ulterior motive. You might as well save your time with the ad hominem analysis....

(note, I have not read the Complaint filed yet, so I am just guessing what the WAC will be doing with this).

Another big flaw for you is Nevada NEVER SIGNED the agreement in the first place. Good luck enforcing a contract that was never signed by one of the parties. Since Nevada never signed the contract they do NOT owe the 5 million. Also according to the agreemenmt that was released, it was considered null and void once one of the existing WAC schools left. Since Nevada left first, Frseno was free to go even if BYU had signed.

Benson could very easily be counter sued by the MWC on exactly the same grounds as Benson is sueing the MWC. Benson attempted to destroy the MWC with the help of BYU (witting or not)For those BYU fans who claim BYU did not know about the project, okay BYU has no wits. They were just hapless SAPS.

 

[Merch Frog]

My brain hurts.

 

[JugbandFrog]

some lawyers are gonna get really rich off these fools.

 

[Fred Garvin]

Another comment after the story noted it might be difficult to convince other schools to join the WAC after they witness the manner in which UNR and FSU are being treated when they try to "trade up."

I know Benson is desperate, but this lawsuit might well be self-destructive.

Go Frogs!

When the conference has already self-destructed, you have nothing to lose. You put up a retainer and tell the lawyers to be a pain in the arse and try to get a settlement when the time is right.

 

[haroldskilley]

Another big flaw for you is Nevada NEVER SIGNED the agreement in the first place. Good luck enforcing a contract that was never signed by one of the parties. Since Nevada never signed the contract they do NOT owe the 5 million. Also according to the agreemenmt that was released, it was considered null and void once one of the existing WAC schools left. Since Nevada left first, Frseno was free to go even if BYU had signed.

Benson could very easily be counter sued by the MWC on exactly the same grounds as Benson is sueing the MWC. Benson attempted to destroy the MWC with the help of BYU (witting or not)For those BYU fans who claim BYU did not know about the project, okay BYU has no wits. They were just hapless SAPS.

The WAC will argue that there is an Oral Contract with Reno: http://en.wikipedia....i/Oral_contract

Look out, he's quoting Wikipedia!!!!

LOL... Sir, you hilarious! You are my new favorite frog. Well played!

 

[screetch]

You could be right... but, I'm not sure that BYU owes any fiduciary duties to the MWC---no contractual relationship, and we see that schools can leave conference at will (Utah) and can reorganize a conference and no precedent for punishment (example, MWC-5). Here are the elements of tortious interference (from Wikipedia):

• 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. (MWC had PRIVILEGE? or was their interference WRONGFUL?)
• The contractual relationship is breached.
• Damage to the party against whom the breach occurs.

Regardless, BYU will be brought in (under subpoena, if not voluntary) to testify in Court. Not sure if BYU will pursue this case as a party, though, unless sued as you've noted. Given the "right" of the MWC to save itself by interfering with WAC/BYU plans probably the main issue. (hence why I think the WAC has a 50/50 chance at succeeding with this). If WAC succeeds, effects could be interesting.

BYU was in a contractual relationship with the MWC, but more importantly it was in a position of trust - i.e. sitting in on conference calls and learning the conference's expansion plans/contingency plans. They then exploited this knowledge by going to the WAC and structuring the "Project." I am not aware of any precedent but this seems analagous to a board of directors' fiduciary duties to each other.

I will be interested to see the complaint, but tortious interference between two business competitors is nearly impossible to prove because they each have equal rights to the product. As other posters have mentioned, a breach of contract claim would also seem frivolous because the contract was contingent on BYU joining the conference.

 

[joejordan]

I read the thread title...avoid all distractions, which is EXACTLY what this is.

 

[dweller]

The WAC will argue that there is an Oral Contract with Reno: http://en.wikipedia....i/Oral_contract

[/size][/color][/size][/color]

!

Oral contracts are almost NEVER enforced. I'd say go buy a lottery ticket and your odds of winning are better than the WACS odds of winning if they are depending on an oral contract argument. I can make a deal to buy a car, but until I sign the contract and actualy drive it off the lot, it is not valid. Very weak case, and if you depend on wikipedia for legal advice I have this bridge in Brooklyn that I can let you have cheap. :laugh:

 

[screetch]

Oral contracts are almost NEVER enforced. I'd say go buy a lottery ticket and your odds of winning are better than the WACS odds of winning if they are depending on an oral contract argument. I can make a deal to buy a car, but until I sign the contract and actualy drive it off the lot, it is not valid. Very weak case, and if you depend on wikipedia for legal advice I have this bridge in Brooklyn that I can let you have cheap. :laugh:

Not to nitpick Dweller, because I agree with your conclusion, but in your example the statute of frauds would probably require a written contract.

 

[haroldskilley]

Oral contracts are almost NEVER enforced. I'd say go buy a lottery ticket and your odds of winning are better than the WACS odds of winning if they are depending on an oral contract argument. I can make a deal to buy a car, but until I sign the contract and actualy drive it off the lot, it is not valid. Very weak case, and if you depend on wikipedia for legal advice I have this bridge in Brooklyn that I can let you have cheap. :laugh:

Haha.... No, I don't depend on wikipedia for legal advice... I did use it for a quick source of the elements to a certain cause of action. (I admit, I am guilty... proper research would have been me looking up and providing the elements to a tortious interference claim for all 50 individual states).

A person posts a Wikipedia link, and certain folks go into canned response mode "informing me" that "Wikipedia isn't a real source" ....

Can I buy your bridge?

 

[FeistyFrog]

Haha.... No, I don't depend on wikipedia for legal advice... I did use it for a quick source of the elements to a certain cause of action. (I admit, I am guilty... proper research would have been me looking up and providing the elements to a tortious interference claim for all 50 individual states).

A person posts a Wikipedia link, and certain folks go into canned response mode "informing me" that "Wikipedia isn't a real source" ....

They do hire some of the finest legal minds in the nation. Soon all we will need to transact business will be Google & Wikipedia.

 

[PurpleBlood87]

if you read the comments, you kinda wish we didn't invite Nevada. They have no band. It appears they are broke and their fans/community do not seem to be all that supportive.

One of the main reasons Nevada was invited because they play baseball. The MWC was about to be two small to play baseball as a league.

 

[BABYFACE]

When the conference has already self-destructed, you have nothing to lose. You put up a retainer and tell the lawyers to be a pain in the arse and try to get a settlement when the time is right.

I agree, these are my thoughts also.

 

[BABYFACE]

Oral contracts? :biggrin: :laugh:

Contracts can be voided many different ways and contested, as for oral contracts, are you friggin serious? :laugh: