UK sues Gillispie in Kentucky

[Family Jules]

From the Associated Press:

LEXINGTON, Ky. (AP) -- The University of Kentucky has sued former basketball coach Billy Gillispie the day after Gillispie filed suit against the school claiming breach of contract.

The university's suit was filed Thursday in Franklin Circuit
Court in Kentucky, which the school contends is the proper venue for any litigation involving the coach's former employment. Gillispie had filed his claim Wednesday in Dallas, asking for at least $6 million in pay, punitive damages, attorneys' fees and court costs. Gillispie never signed a formal contract but was working under a memorandum of understanding when he was fired after last season. The two sides are clashing over whether a buyout clause in that memorandum is binding. That would require the school to pay him $1.5 million for four of five years left on his contract.

Interesting.

Jules

 

[Nordberg]

Sorry Billy, next time sign your contract.

 

[Bob in Houston]

Gillispie's lawyer is from Houston and listens to local squawk. He called in this morning and basically argued that UK treated whatever was signed by the parties as a contract, got that agreement approved by the UKAA, made the call on when to stop working on a more complete deal, and warned Gillispie to back off of a contract he wanted to sign here in Houston because UK believed it had the right to control BCG under their agreement.

But that clearly was one side of the story.

 

[TomTerrific]

Back to UTEP with you.

 

[hornpharmd]

how ****** is all of this for Kentucky. They are getting sued by their former coach. Now their new coach is being implicated in a huge scandal at his former school. Ouch.

 

[Texas Wahoo]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[NickDanger]

He actually may have a good case, but probably not for what he is asking. If you promise someone you will employ them (and maybe promise to sign a contract) for a jillion dollars and they pack up and move and pass up an opportunity to get paid a jillion + 100k to stay at home (or somewhere cheaper to live than UK, you would have a good claim for the $100k plus moving expenses (or higher living costs).

I've never understood why people even enter into "memorandums of agreement" or whatever. They are more often than not contracts that haven't been fancied up by each other's lawyers. Unless they specifically say they are unenforceable, they probably have all the necessary elements of a binding contract.

 

[Bob in Houston]

Nick, I agree. If you sign something with intent to make a contract, you have a contract over what you agreed to. If it's not a detailed agreement, that's the fault of the parties. The question, I assume, is how the outline and anything after that covered early dismissal.

 

[bierce]

Actually, there are problems for both sides, and if the parties don't sit down and hammer out a settlement, it could be a long trail of litigation in mulitple forums.

The memorandum of understanding was expressly made contingent upon securing execution of the final contract, which never occurred, but which was to include language describing what would constitute termination for cause. Gillispie alleges in his lawsuit that UK or UKAA agents and/or general counsel made oral and written representations that the MOU was going to serve as the final contract. UK alleges in their lawsuit that Gillispie refused to sign any proferred final contract and kept insisting on terms contrary to what was already in the MOU. UK even urges the failure to reach the final agreement to be cause for termination.

It's a pretty complex case; one that might appear all over law students' casebooks for years to come since it presents a myriad of issues regarding contract formation, contingent offers, partial performance, withdrawal of offer, federal-state jurisdictional issues, procedural issues regarding whether the federal court in Texas can or should claim jurisdiction over UK's countersuit, issues regarding the proper parties, and on and on and on.

 

[NickDanger]

It DOES sound more complex than your typical "MOU", but I'll scratch my head again why people enter into these things at all. I have a dear friend and client right now that did one of these on a scrap of paper to buy a business and then started operating the business 3 months ago. They both have powerful reasons to finalize a deal, but they both have a deal of some sort on their hands and neither one is particularly happy with it.

 

[bierce]

Of course, you have to go back to two years ago. UK was getting turned down by other coaches and needed to get someone. Gillispie had a chance to get to one of the top college basketball programs of all time. Both parties were extremely interested in getting together, so they did.

What I don't understand, however, is why the memorandum of understanding didn't include some other provisions. I would think UK or UK related entities would as a matter of course include favorable Kentucky venue and choice of law clauses. That would take the extraordinary effort of typing a whole line. I would think the memorandum would contain a recitation that failure to come to a final agreement beyond a certain date would vitiate the termination and buyout clauses. And I would think the memorandum would contain a statement that the university may terminate for cause in the event the incoming employee violates any university rule or regulation that calls for the termination of any employee in general, unless other specifically excepted. But it didn't have any of those things.

You can always look for some kind of hole in a contract, and not every contingency can be anticipated. Some things, however, would obviously be required by the university, and I don't understand why they weren't made part of the memorandum.

 

[Bob in Houston]

In reply to:

---

---