forums

Tears Gator Tears

Advertisement
For the lawyers in here. Does Rashada have a chance of winning?

I Hope Please GIF
 
Advertisement
Advertisement
JD08 said:
For the lawyers in here. Does Rashada have a chance of winning?

I Hope Please GIF
Click to expand...


Hard to know without seeing the terms of the contract.

But here are some aspects which I think work in Rashada's favor.

1. With NIL becoming more accepted and acceptable, it is not crazy for a judge to rule that the NIL offer had a material and direct impact on the choice of one college over others (and NIL offers from others), even if the deal is not "pay-for-play".

2. The timing of the flip was very late in the day. In other words, if you make an offer in November that requires a signed LOI in December and enrollment in January, it is not the type of timing that allows a polite "hey, we reconsidered the terms, let's both walk away" while giving Rashada a lot of time to find another comparable offer. In this situation, Rashada has already spurned the Miami agreement for the "better" Florida offer, and given the NCAA calendar of visits, commits, signings, LOIs, and enrollment, the late timing really is not something that would lead a judge to sympathize with Florida.

3. Rashada did everything he could do to meet his end of the bargain. He signed an LOI with Florida. He was in Hogtown in January to enroll. It is amusing to see that the less-mature, less-sophisticated party in a contract is actually the one who behaves and comports himself better in the process.

4. If the court WERE TO rule in Florida's favor, you would have to ask yourself "why"? Now that the NIL agreements are becoming commonplace, to rule AGAINST Rashada would be tantamount to saying that NIL agreements aren't worth the paper they are written on, and it creates an unnecessary and chaotic "buyer's remorse" situation that would be inherently unfair to the individual players who agree to such deals.

I would imagine that Florida and Hathnocock will settle.
 
Advertisement
Advertisement
TheOriginalCane said:
Hard to know without seeing the terms of the contract.

But here are some aspects which I think work in Rashada's favor.

1. With NIL becoming more accepted and acceptable, it is not crazy for a judge to rule that the NIL offer had a material and direct impact on the choice of one college over others (and NIL offers from others), even if the deal is not "pay-for-play".

2. The timing of the flip was very late in the day. In other words, if you make an offer in November that requires a signed LOI in December and enrollment in January, it is not the type of timing that allows a polite "hey, we reconsidered the terms, let's both walk away" while giving Rashada a lot of time to find another comparable offer. In this situation, Rashada has already spurned the Miami agreement for the "better" Florida offer, and given the NCAA calendar of visits, commits, signings, LOIs, and enrollment, the late timing really is not something that would lead a judge to sympathize with Florida.

3. Rashada did everything he could do to meet his end of the bargain. He signed an LOI with Florida. He was in Hogtown in January to enroll. It is amusing to see that the less-mature, less-sophisticated party in a contract is actually the one who behaves and comports himself better in the process.

4. If the court WERE TO rule in Florida's favor, you would have to ask yourself "why"? Now that the NIL agreements are becoming commonplace, to rule AGAINST Rashada would be tantamount to saying that NIL agreements aren't worth the paper they are written on, and it creates an unnecessary and chaotic "buyer's remorse" situation that would be inherently unfair to the individual players who agree to such deals.

I would imagine that Florida and Hathnocock will settle.
Click to expand...

Yeah they would want to settle far before depositions. But IDK with Hugh, he may be a stubborn "lets take him to Court" kind of guy and try to clear his name. But i could see Billy trying to bow out early because I am unsure (without seeing the contract and reading the entire complaint) why he would personally be on the hook. Does not appear he was promising the cash, he was acting as a middle man saying others would promise the cash.

Also Rashada's damages are real since he can say he had 9.5 million on the table from Miami and would have received that. Also interesting to look at the "for cause" termination a month after they signed the NIL deal. I have a feeling the "for cause" was Hugh pulling out of the deal which would then make sense if the re-negotiations were roughly 1/2 of the promised 13.85 mil since Hathcock was putting up roughly 6 million personally.

I am assuming they could either prevail under 1. breach of contract for the original NIL; 2. Fraudulent/negligent misrepresentation for the bait and switch, and perhaps ever 3. another breach of contract if they can show the second (assuming) oral contract of sign the NIL and I will pay you 1 million. Regardless I think the Rashadas are getting some cash either via settlement or Court.
 
Advertisement
Back
Top