• Hi Guest, want to participate in the discussions, keep track of read/unread posts access private forums and more? Create your free account and increase the benefits of your eGriz.com experience today!

BREACH OF CONTRACT

DayLaw said:
Objectively, it’s clear by his actions he resigned rather than retire. It doesn’t matter how he tries slapping lipstick on this pig by calling it a retirement.
Click to expand...
I worked with a guy that did the exact same thing as Hauck. “Retired” and then a week later another company heard he no longer was working and snatched him up. Agents know what the contract said and went for it. Now if the UM contract defines retirement as something different other than the “action of leaving one’s job” I would think UM better update contract verbage to avoid any future issues.
 
DayLaw said:
Why are you even arguing this? It’s clear you don’t understand contract law. It’s not his intent that matters. It matters what happened he didn’t actually retire so technically he’s not out of the contract that had a year left. He then took another job in a similar profession so the liquidated damages is available. I’ve heard UM is going for it and they should.
Click to expand...
That’s not accurate. You don’t understand contract law.
 
DayLaw said:
Objectively, it’s clear by his actions he resigned rather than retire. It doesn’t matter how he tries slapping lipstick on this pig by calling it a retirement.
Click to expand...
You are wrong. Retiring for a short period is fine. After he gave notice, he was no longer working for UM and could do anything he wanted to do.
 
Marty11 said:
I may have to agree on the retirement part, I'm surprised that there would not be a timeframe on the amount of time that must lapse before coming out of retirement.

I mean if all you need to do is announce your retirement, why hasn't every coach that is moving on just retire to avoid the buyout?:unsure:
Click to expand...
Because if they have set up another job in advance, that violates the contract.
 
argh! said:
i dunno, i think he made it pretty clear in the press conference that he was planning on continuing to coach after the montana job, and that he expected/hoped he would be getting calls right after the news went out.

my take is that he wasn't really 'retiring'. why he chose that term when it wasn't really his intention, i do not know.
Click to expand...
He was retiring from the UM job.
 
argh! said:
this is the definition of retire (below). hauck, according to his own words, wasn't retiring. he was quitting his job for something different.

re·tire
/rəˈtī(ə)r/
verb
verb: retire; 3rd person present: retires; past tense: retired; past participle: retired; gerund or present participle: retiring
  1. 1.
    leave one's job and cease to work, typically upon reaching the normal age for leaving employment.
Click to expand...
I have retired from 2 jobs, looking for another job.
 
argh! said:
does the word 'retirement' really need a belabored explanation, even in a contract? it seems like common knowledge/understanding would define retirement as... retirement. i'm pretty sure saying 'i planned on finding another job' indicates hauck was not really retiring.

having said that, i know, i know, legalese can twist the truth to the benefit of one person or entity.
Click to expand...
Your analysis is correct. Not a close call.
 
Are posters just making up what Haslam has supposedly said? It doesn't seem that he would say or hint that, even if UM planned to do it. And, UM can't possibly have all the facts yet. The two guys were on the same committee, were friends and had talked in general. Phone records would show that. If the other guy at Seattle had been offered the job, as some posters have said, that would make things absolutely clear.
 
mthoopsfan said:
Are posters just making up what Haslam has supposedly said? It doesn't seem that he would say or hint that, even if UM planned to do it. And, UM can't possibly have all the facts yet. The two guys were on the same committee, were friends and had talked in general. Phone records would show that. If the other guy at Seattle had been offered the job, as some posters have said, that would make things absolutely clear.
Click to expand...
Go watch his interview with Colter. He said clear as day that they plan to pursue the buyout of the contract. Point blank said this was not a retirement if he took another college coaching job.
 
Regardless of who, what, where, why, or when, it’s a pretty poorly written contract from the university side. A university that has its own law school to boot. If there was a clause in there for retirement, it’s hard to believe that clause didn’t contain more verbiage of contingencies such as other employment within a set time period (such as the initial contract length, etc) after retirement or other stipulated circumstances.
 
Griz til I die said:
Go watch his interview with Colter. He said clear as day that they plan to pursue the buyout of the contract. Point blank said this was not a retirement if he took another college coaching job.
Click to expand...
He didn’t say clear as day that they plan on pursuing it. He said that there is a reason why buyout clauses are in the contract. To me it sounded like Haslam is considering legal action but has not decided what to do until he can gather all of the facts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Back
Top