Didn't the Falcons perform in the same manner as Arkansas, when they hired Petrino away from his 10-year contract with Louisville?

 SkeptiSys -- 12/14/2007 7:27 PM  

It wasn't exactly the same. Louisville gave Atlanta permission to talk to Petrino while he was under contract. Arkansas never sought nor received permission from Atlanta. The official line is that Arkansas waited until Petrino "resigned" on Tuesday morning before negotiating a contract later that day. But there was almost certainly contact between Arkansas and Petrino (or Petrino's agent) well before that, as evidenced by Jerry Jones's call to Atlanta owner Arthur Blank a week ago inquiring about permission for Arkansas to talk to Petrino.

 Skip -- 12/15/2007 10:26 AM  

Since it's a state school, can it be sued for monetary damages or would the Alden case / sovereign immunity apply?

Do states normally just consent?

Thank you for helping me study con law.

 Anonymous -- 12/15/2007 4:39 PM  

What about a basic claim for breach of contract. Damages or negative injunction? Injunction against Arkansas (Fairbanks case)

 Anonymous -- 12/15/2007 6:33 PM  

A basic breach of contract claim would make sense, except that projecting damages is very difficult in personal services contract breach cases. I did a law review article many years ago about the difficulties of courts to apply actual damages or even consequential damages because of the lack of forseeability. Regarding the injunction, I'm not sure that a court would grant it, since Arkansas is not direct competitor to an NFL team. Also, one has to show the coach is "unique" which is harder for some courts than others. The tort action frees up more damages, and opens up the possiblity of a jury rendering punitive damages.

 Mark Conrad -- 12/15/2007 8:23 PM  

I have a different take on this entire issue. Tortious interference, which is difficult to establish generally, is going to be more difficult to establish against Ark. Who contacted who? Judging by Petrino's track record over the past 5 years (his seeking a different coaching job each year), it doesn't look good for the Falcons. Also, courts are generally hesitant to enforce these claims in the employment realm because it impedes a free market for employee services.

I acknowledge the Fairbanks case, but that was decided almost 30 years ago, prior to the onset of heavily negotiated buyout and liquidated damage clauses. It would be interesting to know what Petrino's contract with Atlanta provides in this regard. And whether it covers Petrino leaving for a college coaching position?

 Rick Karcher -- 12/16/2007 7:12 AM  

But courts will recognize the one sidedness of these contracts. Coach quits no harm no foul everyone parts ways. Coach gets fired team still pays. I dont think there was a buyout in the contract because there is an article quoting Petrino's agent Russ Campbell as saying they were not going to leave because Blank threatened legal action (Blank denies this). Moreover, I speculate that coaches always take a hard stand that they are not leaving right before they quit in order to establish they were not working with other teams while under contract. Then they resign and make deals.

 Anonymous -- 12/16/2007 8:10 PM  

Anon,

When a coach quits in the middle of the contract term, it's not that there is "no harm no foul and everyone parts ways". Coaches contracts are not "one-sided" agreements, and calling it a resignation doesn't change the outcome.

Petrino terminated his contract early with the Falcons, and the question is what recourse do the Falcons have against Petrino. A liquidated damages/buyout clause in a contract answers that question (and the new team or school typically pays the buyout, i.e. Michigan is paying the $4M buyout in Rodriguez's WV contract). If Petrino's contract with the Falcons does not have such a provision, then the question is what are the damages, and who knows what that is or whether the Falcons would even pursue it (they have a duty to mitigate, i.e. find another coach, which may result in little or no damage).

 Rick Karcher -- 12/17/2007 8:26 AM  

See Norhteastern University v. Donald A Brown 2004 WL 616225 (2004) Injunction granted for non-compete plus liquidated damages.

 Anonymous -- 12/17/2007 4:18 PM  

thanks

 Çeçenistan -- 2/22/2009 8:54 AM  

Post a Comment