The Work 12-13

[rsa coral gables]

This is all irrelevant. You’re talking about individual situations. I’m talking about a supposed general mandate at a private school which allegedly prevents students from signing early in December. Credit status is a side issue that has nothing to do with my point that I’m questioning whether Aquinas really has this policy (I’ve never seen where this is stated) and if they do, how they can legally enforce it.

The answer likely lies in your first post on the subject -- freedom of contract. Any policy STA (or any other private school) has about athletes graduating early or signing an LOI early would likely be covered by the enrollment/attendance contracts between the school and the parent/guardian and/or student. And even if that policy is not specifically addressed, there is likely some catch-all provision in the contract. So if, for instance, a school has an enrollment contract wherein the parent and student agree to abide by all formal policies and procedures of the school, and the school adopts a policy/procedure regarding early enrollment or early signing, the parent and/or student is arguably bound by the contract they signed not to enroll early or sign early.

I’m not a contract lawyer, even though I direct and manage teams of contract lawyers, both internal and external, through multiple negotiations.

I can tell you this. Contracts that include general catchall phrases are generally unenforceable and never stand up when challenged. The only possibility is that Aquinas added a clause this year specifically addressing the early signing period. Even with such a clause, what would be their remedy for non-compliance? Expulsion of the student? That would be draconian and counterproductive due to a a guaranteed torrent of negative publicity

They may have this policy, enforced by hierarchical and peer pressure, and people may abide as in most policies at private schools. And the policy may remain unchallenged. But that does not mean that it is in any way a policy that they can actually enforce if someone was dead set on early enrolling.

By the way, we still don’t even know if they have this policy. No one has ever confirmed this to my knowledge.

Um, OriginalCanesCanesCanes, you are one of the best posters/members on here, but your assertion that general catchall phrases (ambiguously defined) are unenforceable is absolutely incorrect. i am a contract lawyer and address very detailed contract issues everyday.

no opinion on whether STA's policy of not allowing early enrollment is enforceable or not, since i have not seen it

 

[JHallCanes]

Taggart knows what he's doing.

Elite recruiter.

What is this based on?

That he loves ******* with people here because it’s so simple

 

[OriginalCanesCanesCanes]

This is all irrelevant. You’re talking about individual situations. I’m talking about a supposed general mandate at a private school which allegedly prevents students from signing early in December. Credit status is a side issue that has nothing to do with my point that I’m questioning whether Aquinas really has this policy (I’ve never seen where this is stated) and if they do, how they can legally enforce it.

The answer likely lies in your first post on the subject -- freedom of contract. Any policy STA (or any other private school) has about athletes graduating early or signing an LOI early would likely be covered by the enrollment/attendance contracts between the school and the parent/guardian and/or student. And even if that policy is not specifically addressed, there is likely some catch-all provision in the contract. So if, for instance, a school has an enrollment contract wherein the parent and student agree to abide by all formal policies and procedures of the school, and the school adopts a policy/procedure regarding early enrollment or early signing, the parent and/or student is arguably bound by the contract they signed not to enroll early or sign early.

I’m not a contract lawyer, even though I direct and manage teams of contract lawyers, both internal and external, through multiple negotiations.

I can tell you this. Contracts that include general catchall phrases are generally unenforceable and never stand up when challenged. The only possibility is that Aquinas added a clause this year specifically addressing the early signing period. Even with such a clause, what would be their remedy for non-compliance? Expulsion of the student? That would be draconian and counterproductive due to a a guaranteed torrent of negative publicity

They may have this policy, enforced by hierarchical and peer pressure, and people may abide as in most policies at private schools. And the policy may remain unchallenged. But that does not mean that it is in any way a policy that they can actually enforce if someone was dead set on early enrolling.

By the way, we still don’t even know if they have this policy. No one has ever confirmed this to my knowledge.

Um, OriginalCanesCanesCanes, you are one of the best posters/members on here, but your assertion that general catchall phrases (ambiguously defined) are unenforceable is absolutely incorrect. i am a contract lawyer and address very detailed contract issues everyday.

no opinion on whether STA's policy of not allowing early enrollment is enforceable or not, since i have not seen it

I guess you can hash that out with one of the many lawyers that I direct, but that’s what they tell me.

The reason I’ve been told they are unenforceable is that when the catchall includes situations considered “excessive”, ie, impinging on someone’s privacy or liberty, they don’t stand up when challenged. That is, the party can enforce, but then when challenged the challenge is upheld.

The contracts I exclusively deal with are B2B and involve teams of lawyers and generalities are generally verbotten. Everything gets nailed down. We deal with specifics and other than things like force majeure type clauses we stay away from generalities like catchall clauses because they create future problems and uncertainty.

Have a nice day.

 

[RVACane]

why would taggart already use his in home visit with asante if he isnt signing until feb?

I'm pretty sure Taggart visited him at school, which doesn't count as the HC's in-home

Nope he visited him at home

Nope. He visited him at both, school and home.

 

[brock]

why would taggart already use his in home visit with asante if he isnt signing until feb?

I'm pretty sure Taggart visited him at school, which doesn't count as the HC's in-home

Nope he visited him at home

Nope. He visited him at both, school and home.

******* weirdo

 

[DTP]

So, Samuel is in.
Coaches are flying the latest copy of hooked on phonics to Connecticut.

Taggert blew his wad too early with Samuel.

 

[RVACane]

why would taggart already use his in home visit with asante if he isnt signing until feb?

I'm pretty sure Taggart visited him at school, which doesn't count as the HC's in-home

Nope he visited him at home

Nope. He visited him at both, school and home.

******* weirdo

He visited him in the morning at STA and then did an in-home at night with him. It was reported by Nee or Newburg or one of their 247 writers in their thread on Samuel.

I hope you're calling Taggert a fücking weirdo.

 

[Odysseus]

Is this real like Samuel can visit with the American heritage 4 and we can get all of them wow

Sent from my LG-H918 using Tapatalk

 

[rsa coral gables]

This is all irrelevant. You’re talking about individual situations. I’m talking about a supposed general mandate at a private school which allegedly prevents students from signing early in December. Credit status is a side issue that has nothing to do with my point that I’m questioning whether Aquinas really has this policy (I’ve never seen where this is stated) and if they do, how they can legally enforce it.

The answer likely lies in your first post on the subject -- freedom of contract. Any policy STA (or any other private school) has about athletes graduating early or signing an LOI early would likely be covered by the enrollment/attendance contracts between the school and the parent/guardian and/or student. And even if that policy is not specifically addressed, there is likely some catch-all provision in the contract. So if, for instance, a school has an enrollment contract wherein the parent and student agree to abide by all formal policies and procedures of the school, and the school adopts a policy/procedure regarding early enrollment or early signing, the parent and/or student is arguably bound by the contract they signed not to enroll early or sign early.

I’m not a contract lawyer, even though I direct and manage teams of contract lawyers, both internal and external, through multiple negotiations.

I can tell you this. Contracts that include general catchall phrases are generally unenforceable and never stand up when challenged. The only possibility is that Aquinas added a clause this year specifically addressing the early signing period. Even with such a clause, what would be their remedy for non-compliance? Expulsion of the student? That would be draconian and counterproductive due to a a guaranteed torrent of negative publicity

They may have this policy, enforced by hierarchical and peer pressure, and people may abide as in most policies at private schools. And the policy may remain unchallenged. But that does not mean that it is in any way a policy that they can actually enforce if someone was dead set on early enrolling.

By the way, we still don’t even know if they have this policy. No one has ever confirmed this to my knowledge.

Um, OriginalCanesCanesCanes, you are one of the best posters/members on here, but your assertion that general catchall phrases (ambiguously defined) are unenforceable is absolutely incorrect. i am a contract lawyer and address very detailed contract issues everyday.

no opinion on whether STA's policy of not allowing early enrollment is enforceable or not, since i have not seen it

I guess you can hash that out with one of the many lawyers that I direct, but that’s what they tell me.

The reason I’ve been told they are unenforceable is that when the catchall includes situations considered “excessive”, ie, impinging on someone’s privacy or liberty, they don’t stand up when challenged. That is, the party can enforce, but then when challenged the challenge is upheld.

The contracts I exclusively deal with are B2B and involve teams of lawyers and generalities are generally verbotten. Everything gets nailed down. We deal with specifics and other than things like force majeure type clauses we stay away from generalities like catchall clauses because they create future problems and uncertainty.

Have a nice day.

ambiguity does create problems and uncertainty and hence why your team of lawyers like to nail down each specific term, but that does not make general catchall phrases verbotten. sometimes the ambiguity and wiggle room is what you want. it depends on a million things, subject matter, context, parties, leverage, size of the deal etc.

generalities are generally inaccurate, just like 48% of all statistics are generally inaccurate.

 

[The Franchise]

I doubt there’s anything legal stopping Blades from signing early. We will see, though. If no STA kids ever sign early, then you legal eagles might have a point.

Generally speaking, a minor can void any contract he might have signed while a minor as long as he doesn’t ratify it after reaching the age of majority.

 

[dfagundo]

I doubt there’s anything legal stopping Blades from signing early. We will see, though. If no STA kids ever sign early, then you legal eagles might have a point.

Generally speaking, a minor can void any contract he might have signed while a minor as long as he doesn’t ratify it after reaching the age of majority.

Shoutout to Prof. Guzzi BSL401, for those who've had her
[MENTION=6738]wherrera8[/MENTION]

 

[Hegemon]

I doubt there’s anything legal stopping Blades from signing early. We will see, though. If no STA kids ever sign early, then you legal eagles might have a point.

Generally speaking, a minor can void any contract he might have signed while a minor as long as he doesn’t ratify it after reaching the age of majority.

Chise having gone there I can tell you they like having everyone sign "normally" on NSD.

They have it all setup and what not. Have thing changed? Perhaps but at least when I was there everyone was "equal" and just signed on the "special day".

 

[Canes2082]

I doubt there’s anything legal stopping Blades from signing early. We will see, though. If no STA kids ever sign early, then you legal eagles might have a point.

Generally speaking, a minor can void any contract he might have signed while a minor as long as he doesn’t ratify it after reaching the age of majority.

Chise having gone there I can tell you they like having everyone sign "normally" on NSD.

They have it all setup and what not. Have thing changed? Perhaps but at least when I was there everyone was "equal" and just signed on the "special day".

That was George Smith's thing correct ? Also I remember he only allowed you to commit one time so with Harley last year and Asante now that's a good thing he's gone lol

 

[kryptonite]

I don’t understand why someone couldn’t sign early. It’s not the same as enrolling early. Two completely different things. Why would a school have a policy against a student signing early? Honestly, that’s a violation of the student’s constitutional rights.

Maybe it has to do with credits earned?

Which constitutional right?

The constitutional right to sign whatever contract you fūcking well please. Jesus, what actual right do they have to prevent someone from signing an agreement that they’re not a party to? That’s like me telling you you can’t sign you’re next employment agreement because I’m the guy that provides your coffee, they provide the kids education as a private service.

Maybe they're not forbidding it and they simply ask their students to do a big school-wide event for the exposure and since our coaching staff is actually made of professionals, they're not strong-arming our recruits from one of the best local programs to sign early and instead let them participate in the signing day activities with the rest of their team and coaches.

This gets my vote for "Best Seventh Post Ever". That's a thing we're doing right?

 

[The Franchise]

I doubt there’s anything legal stopping Blades from signing early. We will see, though. If no STA kids ever sign early, then you legal eagles might have a point.

Generally speaking, a minor can void any contract he might have signed while a minor as long as he doesn’t ratify it after reaching the age of majority.

Chise having gone there I can tell you they like having everyone sign "normally" on NSD.

They have it all setup and what not. Have thing changed? Perhaps but at least when I was there everyone was "equal" and just signed on the "special day".

This is the first year of the early signing period so we’ll see what happens at STA.

They can still have a ceremony on signing day, but they can fck things up badly for their marginal players if they don’t let them sign early. The reason is that some big time programs might be willing to cut ties with marginal “commits” who don’t sign early. They’ll hang in with the super blue chippers through February, but they might tell a marginal guy “if you don’t sign early then we don’t consider you committed and will continue recruiting others to your spot.”

 

[orange&green84]

Louisville just took another DT (4th in the class). Has to help with Goldwire.

[TWEET]941393800169230336[/TWEET]

 

[Ver]

I think that pretty much concedes that he's gone from Louisville

 

[Hegemon]

I doubt there’s anything legal stopping Blades from signing early. We will see, though. If no STA kids ever sign early, then you legal eagles might have a point.

Generally speaking, a minor can void any contract he might have signed while a minor as long as he doesn’t ratify it after reaching the age of majority.

Chise having gone there I can tell you they like having everyone sign "normally" on NSD.

They have it all setup and what not. Have thing changed? Perhaps but at least when I was there everyone was "equal" and just signed on the "special day".

This is the first year of the early signing period so we’ll see what happens at STA.

They can still have a ceremony on signing day, but they can fck things up badly for their marginal players if they don’t let them sign early. The reason is that some big time programs might be willing to cut ties with marginal “commits” who don’t sign early. They’ll hang in with the super blue chippers through February, but they might tell a marginal guy “if you don’t sign early then we don’t consider you committed and will continue recruiting others to your spot.”

Good point and this is the first year of early signing.

Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk

 

[AdrianP]

I had a dream where the American heritage boys Nesta, Andrew, and Tyson all had a surprise signing event on the second day of early signing period, then went on their official visit during the last official visit weekend February 2. Apparently there is no rule preventing a kid from signing LOI first then going on official visit later.

 

[Cribby]

Louisville just took another DT (4th in the class). Has to help with Goldwire.

[TWEET]941393800169230336[/TWEET]

Hopefully fsu can flip him to with with Penix. It would be a perfect fit