Who doesn't love this guy?

[hawkeye12345]

Although it happens from time to time, courts are pretty unlikely to enforce a Terms Sheet. It likely even has statements to the effect that it is "non-binding".

This is also true and may be alfords saving grace. In the UNM v alford terms sheet it states, "Terms are contingent upon our reaching agreement on a final employment agreement."

This will be interesting to watch. UNM obviously feels burned by this guy and will likely not want to back down from collecting their cool mil.

 

[LG210]

This is correct. Which is also why UNM is adamant about pointing this out in all of their communication between UNM and alford's reps.

No it isn't. The contract was never signed. Terms sheets generally are not binding agreements.

Note that the agreement wasn't even ready for Alford to sign until after his resignation. My speculation is that the lawyers scrambled to throw it together quickly after being notified of his resignation.

If the terms sheet was intended to be a binding document, the actual agreement which was prepared after his resignation would be unneccessary.

Without having signed the actual new agreement, his employment would be governed by the existing agreement and addendum, which clearly does not have a liquidated damages provision for resignation, or the demand letter would not be citing the terms sheet.

However, if I were Alford, I'd be real concerned if the jurisdiction for dispute resolution is New Mexico. Put him up on a jury trial and they will make him pay through the nose--possibly treble damages for fraud, if NM has a statute to such effect.

That is why I think Alford will end up paying something. If it were not for the home court advantage, UNM would not have much of a leg to stand on.

 

[HawkeyeMHA]

We live in a day and age that a man's word is not worth a nickel. IF Alford, or any man, had any integrity they would pay the money no questions asked. He knows what he did and he should pay it. Why do lawyers even need to get involved? Really it comes down to, this is signed, and this is not signed. Alford said in a presser before the tourney that they reached a deal on the extension. He went on DP show and talked about it. Legally he might not owe it, but morally he does, but morals no longer count in this world.

It's not like the guy is going to be hurting to make his mortgage payment.

This is not just an Alford thing it is the ethics of all of society right now, but it is also another reason this proves Alford is a POS.

p.s. say the word morals to yourself it’s really a strange sounding word.

Well done

 

[hawkfan33]

I believe I know a lawyer in Evanston who could help Alford out here. Probably at a reasonable rate as well.

 

[Section136]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Im guessing pro bono for Alford.

 

[hawkeye12345]

No it isn't. The contract was never signed. Terms sheets generally are not binding agreements.

Note that the agreement wasn't even ready for Alford to sign until after his resignation. My speculation is that the lawyers scrambled to throw it together quickly after being notified of his resignation.

If the terms sheet was intended to be a binding document, the actual agreement which was prepared after his resignation would be unneccessary.

Without having signed the actual new agreement, his employment would be governed by the existing agreement and addendum, which clearly does not have a liquidated damages provision for resignation, or the demand letter would not be citing the terms sheet.

However, if I were Alford, I'd be real concerned if the jurisdiction for dispute resolution is New Mexico. Put him up on a jury trial and they will make him pay through the nose--possibly treble damages for fraud, if NM has a statute to such effect.

That is why I think Alford will end up paying something. If it were not for the home court advantage, UNM would not have much of a leg to stand on.

Don't want to argue technicalities because I agree with your legal interpretation. The issue is going to be that both alford and UNM acknowledged publicly that a new contract had been agreed to prior to the NCAA tournament and their "2nd" round game. Wouldn't public acknowledgement of an agreement supersede the signature on a piece of paper?