Lane Kiffin is still a tool..... (1 Viewer)

[Don Quixote]

What makes Pola's case different from the Rick Barry case, for example (where he could not play for ABA while under contract with NBA team)?

 

[Christo]

You mean his team that just lost a coach because USC and that coach violated a contract that he had with Fisher's team?And it is not a pointless lawsuit. A lawsuit like this will let other rule-breaking schools and coaches like USC and Kiffin know that, if you break the rules with no regard for anyone else, there will be consequences. I know accountability is a tricky thing in this day and age, but Kiffin and USC are simply gonna be held accountable for their actions.

Look, I hate USC, but it's pretty dang unlikely that they broke any rules. The NCAA is a separate employer from the NFL; a tampering clause in an NFL coach's contract has no bearing on the NCAA. Pola might have breached his contract, but even that is unlikely; a contract that says you must obtain written permission before interviewing for a job with another employer is unenforceable.Anyway, it's just a publicity stunt.

This has nothing to do with breaking a rule. It's interference with contractual rights.

 

[Christo]

Pola might have breached his contract, but even that is unlikely;

Everyone involved admits that this is EXACTLY what happened. The Titans never gave Pola permission to interview and they never gave Kiffin permission to interview him.

a contract that says you must obtain written permission before interviewing for a job with another employer is unenforceable.

How so?

In America, you have the right to look for another job.http://news.cnet.com/8301-1001_3-10010724-92.html for one example of a relevant court ruling. "Non-competition agreements are invalid...in California even if narrowly drawn."

Perhaps you can explain how a ruling on the issue of the validity of a non-compete clause is relevant to someone who is actually under contract.

 

[CalBear]

Perhaps you can explain how a ruling on the issue of the validity of a non-compete clause is relevant to someone who is actually under contract.

The relevance is that you can't write contracts which abridge people's rights; they're unenforceable. Despite the best efforts of corporations, U.S. citizens still have some rights.

 

[Christo]

Perhaps you can explain how a ruling on the issue of the validity of a non-compete clause is relevant to someone who is actually under contract.

The relevance is that you can't write contracts which abridge people's rights; they're unenforceable. Despite the best efforts of corporations, U.S. citizens still have some rights.

Every contract "abridges" the parties' "rights." That's the entire purpose. You agree to do something you wouldn't otherwise do in exchange for something the other person wouldn't otherwise give you.Now, could you answer my question?

 

[CletiusMaximus]

Perhaps you can explain how a ruling on the issue of the validity of a non-compete clause is relevant to someone who is actually under contract.

The relevance is that you can't write contracts which abridge people's rights; they're unenforceable. Despite the best efforts of corporations, U.S. citizens still have some rights.

Your second sentence is more or less a statement of the obvious, and maybe just some gratuitous rhetoric, but your first sentence is definitely incorrect. The whole point of entering into a contract is to create rights and obligations that otherwise would not exist under common law. You've referenced and linked to the law of non-compete agreements, which are enforceable in most cases if properly drafted. But this isn't a non-compete case and its not a breach of contract case so that is not directly relevant in any case.Its a two-count claim, the first based on Tennessee statute (Tennessee Code Annotated Section 47-50-109 - "It is unlawful for any person, by inducement, persuasion, misrepresentation, or other means, to induce or procure the breach or violation, refusal or failure to perform any lawful contract by any party thereto; and, in every case where a breach or violation of such contract is so procured, the person so procuring or inducing the same shall be liable in treble the amount of damages resulting from or incident to the breach of the contract. The party injured by such breach may bring suit for the breach and for such damages.") and the second a common-law tort claim along the same lines. It is doubtful there is much certainly either way at this point in the process, so I really just take issue with your statements suggesting there is some certainty in the law as to the enforceability of the contract and the merits of the lawsuit.

the complaint is here: http://aolradio.podcast.aol.com/fanhouse/SDOC5914.pdf

 

[vandyt]

CalBear is in a bit over his head here. How is contractual interference the least bit confusing?

 

[sholditch]

For the legal team, what damages can Tennessee realistically claim here? Not like they were selling out of Pola's jerseys. Even if the running game were to seriously flag, it would be near impossible to prove that this was caused by his departure.

Isn't this one of those cases where the Titans are legally right and should win, but it's not worth pursuing because they can't show any real damages?

 

[Christo]

For the legal team, what damages can Tennessee realistically claim here? Not like they were selling out of Pola's jerseys. Even if the running game were to seriously flag, it would be near impossible to prove that this was caused by his departure.Isn't this one of those cases where the Titans are legally right and should win, but it's not worth pursuing because they can't show any real damages?

The hook is punitive damages and attorneys' fees.

 

[Sopranos25]

Nothing was illegal. It was just not protacal. Its not a violation in NFL rules.

 

[CletiusMaximus]

Nothing was illegal. It was just not protacal. Its not a violation in NFL rules.

Of course its not illegal. This has nothing to do with NFL Rules or protocol. This is a civil lawsuit in Tennessee state court.

 

[Christo]

Nothing was illegal. It was just not protacal. Its not a violation in NFL rules.

protacal?

 

[sholditch]

For the legal team, what damages can Tennessee realistically claim here? Not like they were selling out of Pola's jerseys. Even if the running game were to seriously flag, it would be near impossible to prove that this was caused by his departure.Isn't this one of those cases where the Titans are legally right and should win, but it's not worth pursuing because they can't show any real damages?

The hook is punitive damages and attorneys' fees.

You can get attorney's fees in Tennessee? Can't in Bama I don't think (not a lawyer). So what are the punitive damages for tortuous interference with a contract?

 

[Christo]

For the legal team, what damages can Tennessee realistically claim here? Not like they were selling out of Pola's jerseys. Even if the running game were to seriously flag, it would be near impossible to prove that this was caused by his departure.Isn't this one of those cases where the Titans are legally right and should win, but it's not worth pursuing because they can't show any real damages?

The hook is punitive damages and attorneys' fees.

You can get attorney's fees in Tennessee? Can't in Bama I don't think (not a lawyer). So what are the punitive damages for tortuous interference with a contract?

Their theory is that this is Kiffin's custom and practice. The purpose of punitive damages is not to reward the plaintiff but to punish the defendant and deter the defendant from acting in the same manner in the future. The defendant's assets and income are taken into consideration when determining punitive damages because if it's determined that punitive damages are warranted the award must be sufficient to deter the defendant from acting in the same manner in the future. Kiffin's contract with USC is $4 million per year. If the jury thinks Kiffin acted maliciously they could hit him with a sizable award.

 

[gandalas]

Nothing was illegal. It was just not protacal. Its not a violation in NFL rules.

protacal?

Can you seriously not interpret that as a misspelling of "protocol"?

 

[a.wilkersonjr]

Agreed. He is a tool. Really, the only positive thing he's done for football is give Montario Hardesty a year of Pro-style offense to better prepare him for the NFL. Unfortunately, I doubt that was his intent, and so the tool label sticks