Quote:
Originally Posted by Anyong Bluth
AlNorth- this isn't directed at you as if I'm saying you're wrong, I just quoted your reply since it continues on the topic of discussion re: NU paying or claiming they don't have to & it's unfair.
This isn’t about unjust enrichment or equity. How are you going to argue that when we aren’t talking about damages, which are speculative?
|
The bolded part is I think where the equity argument fails, as you said. (not a lawyer, anything below could be dead-ass wrong for all I know, but I play one on internet message boards)
If I'm Nebraska, I'll have to try to prove to the court that it is not speculative at all, that I can somehow prove that the conference will either not be harmed at all or will benefit from me leaving. (ie in response to the guy saying the Big 12 cant prove damages earlier in this thread, I said they dont have to prove damages because Nebraska agreed in 1996 that there would be damages and it would be speculative. It is now up to Nebraska to show this is no longer the case)
I don't think its really possible to prove that, and the Big 12 can persuasively argue that they are harmed. So, the contract holds up and NU doesn't get their money back.
Hypothetically speaking, lets pretend NU could prove to a court that the Big 12 conference benefits from them leaving, say each school gets $5 million more a year without them than they would with them, basically the "we really suck" argument. Again, I don't see how, but lets pretend that is the case. Then NU might have a good equity argument to get a court to throw out that penalty. The purpose of the penalty is to compensate for possible damages that at the time were impossible to determine. If you can persuasively prove "that was 14 years ago, now we can prove (how?) that the conference benefits from us leaving" then this penalty can be looked at as arbitrarily leading to an unjust enrichment of the conference.