A point on Nutt's lawsuit

[RutherfordBHayes]

It is undeniable when this Ole Miss NCAA news finally broke around December 2015/January 2016 that Ole Miss Atheltic Department representatives including Hugh Freeze and Ross Bjork publicly said that "most" of the allegations occurred under the "previous staff".

That is categorically false.

At that time, there were 13 allegations. 1 of which happened under "the previous staff".

It is undeniable that they lied. That Hugh Freeze intentionally lied. That Ross Bjork intentionally lied. Both disparaged Nutt in the process.

I don't know if this qualifies as defamation or whatever the lawsuit charges. Don't really care. But you can't deny that these cats are liars.

 

[grimedawg1]

Breach of Contract

A cause of action is violating the terms of the separation agreement. From Paragraph 55, "Ole Miss was contractually prohibited from making any statement whatsoever, truthful or not, that may damage or harm Coach Nutt’s reputation."

So, whether Ole Miss was lying about him by saying that Nutt was responsible for most of the violations in the 1st NOA, or whether they were telling the truth by saying two of the violations were during Nutt's tenure, they should not have been trying to prop up Freeze by disparaging Nutt.

 

[tatedog]

This is exactly why this will get settled out of court. It's a slam dunk.

 

[RutherfordBHayes]

... Paragraph 55, "Ole Miss was contractually prohibited from making any statement whatsoever, truthful or not, that may damage or harm Coach Nutt’s reputation."

Ouch

 

[bulldognation]

Yeah, but the damage has been done. Nutt rightly pointed out that Ole Miss willfully mislead recruits in 2016 by intentionally feeding media lies that this whole ordeal they've had to endure was Nutt's fault and the 2016 recruits had nothing to worry about going forward. The reality is what we've known all along, that the majority of the violations occurred under Freeze's watch and the consequences will be severe.

And it isn't lost on anyone that this was released the day before Hugh takes the stage at Media Days.

Ol' Nutt's sending a message to Ole Miss that timing is everything.

 

[TheStateUofMS]

Ouch

Whew! That's a doozy there!

 

[Shmuley]

I'm curious whether the severance agreement contains a liquidated damages provision. Because, if paragraph 55 of the suit is an accurate recitation of the severance agreement's language regarding the signatories' responsibilities to Nutt, then the non-profit defendant needs to get out the checkbook and start filling in the amount of the LD provision.

 

[QuadrupleOption]

I'm curious whether the severance agreement contains a liquidated damages provision. Because, if paragraph 55 of the suit is an accurate recitation of the severance agreement's language regarding the signatories' responsibilities to Nutt, then the non-profit defendant needs to get out the checkbook and start filling in the amount of the LD provision.

Umm....can you repeat that in normal people English, please?

 

[tatedog]

Umm....can you repeat that in normal people English, please?

Here's the Yancy Porter "regular answer" version: Ole Miss 17'd.

 

[Shmuley]

Parties to a contract can agree between themselves, on the front end at the time the agreement is being agreed to and signed, to include language the sets out a specified amount of money that will be paid in damages in the event of a breach of the agreement. An example would be a construction contract that calls for the contractor to pay the owner $1,000 per day for each day the project fails to meet substantial completion by the agreed upon deadline. This is called a liquidated damages provision. The non-breaching party does not have to prove damages. It need only prove that the other party breached the agreement. In my example, the owner multiplies $1,000 times each day that the contractor missed the deadline to calculate the damages owed.

So, applying this explanation to my prior post, if Nutt's severance agreement with the shitheads prohibits the university, the control group and the non-profit from saying ANYTHING, true or not, that disparages Nutt, and if the severance agreement has a liquidated damages provision, then the shitheads just need to write the damn check.

 

[DerHntr]

Hopefully the inmates continue to run the asylum and they decide to fight this to the end. After all, they have done everything possible to protect Freeze thus far. Why stop now?

Freeze testifying under oath with the 7 named journalists in the courtroom would be fun.

 

[Cowdog]

How did Nutt get the Beave's phone records before filling the suit?

 

[coachnorm]

Now that there is potential for a civil lawsuit, what are the legal parameters for maintaining an accurate record of the goings on at OM. If HN subpoenas the public record as possessed by OM and all of a sudden there is none due to destruction of the portions relate able to OM Football, then what. The reason why I bring up this point is the Todd McNair lawsuit versus the NCAA where the NCAAs own public record, in transcript form, is all but guaranteeing defeat to McNair?

 

[PubDawg]

How did Nutt get the Beave's phone records before filling the suit?

Probably a FOI request.
It's public record. Anyone can file a request and ask, right?

 

[Cowdog]

That was the only way I could see that it was possible. That would mean he was using a University supplied phone. He should be fired for being terminally stupid!