- Joined
- Dec 22, 2011
- Messages
- 43,856
I've had you on ignore for several years now because you are in insufferable blowhard, but I'll respond because it's hilarious that you googled "consideration" and now think you are a lawyer.
[BGCOLOR=initial]There were multiple things that a court would consider to be adequate consideration for purposes of establishing a valid co[/BGCOLOR][BGCOLOR=initial]ntract. Two are absolutely indisputable. [/BGCOLOR]
[BGCOLOR=initial]1. Creation of Acc network[/BGCOLOR]
[BGCOLOR=initial]2. Increased a[/BGCOLOR][BGCOLOR=initial]nnual revenue [/BGCOLOR]
The acc gave up the right to sign other tv deals after the original expiration in 2026/2027 in exchange for the above. The agreement extended it to 2035. Freely bargained. Both sides got something of value. There is not a court in the country that would say the contract is invalid due to a lack of consideration. It's simply a stupid argument.
As for caselaw showing that peace of mind can be acceptable cons[BGCOLOR=initial]ideration, go back to your Google search and look up the concept of insurance contracts. [/BGCOLOR]
I am sure you are salty since I was right about UM voting for expansion and you were wrong, but stick with being 0-1. It's not a good look to lose to me again.
You dope, the "creation of ACC Network" was by a different entity. That's not consideration between the ACC and its member institutions. It's not consideration, and it never will be. Nor is "increased annual revenue". You are just making **** up.
The deal for the ACC Network was signed in 2016. We were ALREADY under a Grant of Rights contract for 11 years. In order to grant NINE MORE YEARS to the ACC (the party on the contract), the ACC had to provide consideration, and never did.
It has nothing to do with what ESPN may or may not do later.
I know you're not smart, but you're one of the typical "acts smarter than you are" blowhards (along with @NorthernVirginiaCane ) who are trying to conflate and commingle two or three separate agreements into one.
Unlike you, I've actually worked with and applied TV rights contracts. You can't just sit around doing consideration-free "extensions".
The ACC (not ESPN) got 15 schools to sign an extension IN EXCHANGE FOR NOTHING. Subsequent events do not change that.
As for the rest of your crap about "oh, it was freely bargained" and "oh, the parties are sophisticated" is just garbage. You can't just insert terms like "for valuable consideration" into a contract and expect them to be self-executing. Again, you choose to ignore the fact that the ACC schools were ALREADY under 11 more years of GOR obligation. You can't extend a DIFFERENT contract by extending a GOR and then act like THAT was the consideration. You can't boostrap.
Again, there was no consideration given for the extension. None. Zero. Stop using completely separate agreements to justify one for which no consideration was provided.
You are still the same fraud you have always been. "Insurance contracts". Hilarious. Insurance contracts that you actually pay money for. Directly. Not through some OTHER contract that OTHER parties will negotiate. What a moronic example.