🏈 LSU admits in court to changing John Chavis' contract after he signed it

[mrchase]

The university admitted it altered Chavis' contact, including the buyout clause at the center of his lawsuit, after the assistant coach had already signed the document.

Link

 

[OldPlayer]

Will be interesting to see who altered it. The AD could be gone as a result. Les is running around campus yelling, "Karma!"

 

[XXL TideFan]

Government corruption has ALWAYS been endemic to that neck of the woods.

 

[It Takes Eleven]

Looks like the bean counters wanted a different definition of time frames for termination fees (doesn't look it actually changed the time frames themselves) and since it tooks six months to sign, they replaced the name of the former president with current president. Not material, but they changed the language. Typically, that means they lose. Chavis immediately began recruiting for a&m and apparently didn't honor a 30 day notice period for such. He's probably exposed there, unless they get the entire contract thrown out.

I the end, LSU is sore for having been abandoned for another SEC West team, and Chavis has no intention of paying to get out of his LSU contract. At some point, they'll need to bring adults in to settle it. I'm uncertain when, or if, thes adults will materialize.

RTR,

Tim

 

[TerryP]

Looks like the bean counters wanted a different definition of time frames for termination fees (doesn't look it actually changed the time frames themselves) and since it tooks six months to sign, they replaced the name of the former president with current president. Not material, but they changed the language. Typically, that means they lose. Chavis immediately began recruiting for a&m and apparently didn't honor a 30 day notice period for such. He's probably exposed there, unless they get the entire contract thrown out.

I expect the word amendment to come up often with this ...

 

[Mr. Pink]

I expect the word amendment to come up often with this ...

Altered is the correct term. Amendment means both parties agreed to the change.

It won't be a complete loss for LSU. Basically, the contract that Chavis signed will be the one used... no throwing out of the contract as a whole. If, under the original contract, either party is liable to the other, then they will pay up. The altered contract will just be ignored.

More than anything, it just adds to an already embarrassing past few weeks for the LSU Athletic Department.

Sent from my SM-G925V using Tapatalk

 

[OldPlayer]

LSU filed a lawsuit against A&M because of the timing of Chavis' out clause at LSU. I believe A&M countersued.

Altered is the correct term. Amendment means both parties agreed to the change.

It won't be a complete loss for LSU. Basically, the contract that Chavis signed will be the one used... no throwing out of the contract as a whole. If, under the original contract, either party is liable to the other, then they will pay up. The altered contract will just be ignored.

More than anything, it just adds to an already embarrassing past few weeks for the LSU Athletic Department.

Sent from my SM-G925V using Tapatalk

In terms of which contract is valid, it will be the original signed by Chavis. However, if there is an altered contract that LSU has tried to use, that can be fraud and raises a slew of other issues against LSU. This will be fun to watch from the sidelines.

 

[Bammerboy321]

This is hilarious. Everything is falling apart at LSU

 

[Mr. Pink]

LSU filed a lawsuit against A&M because of the timing of Chavis' out clause at LSU. I believe A&M countersued.

Correct. Although it is LSU v. Chavis (not A&M, even though they are likely fitting the bill for Chavis). LSU sued for the buyout and Chavis is counter suing for pay he alleges they owe him.

As for fraud, that may be a bit of a reach. The only way I think that may apply is if LSU maliciously used the altered contract and it effected the terms of Chavis' contract with A&M.

This happens more often than you would think. Courts will just throw out ambiguous terms or altered terms and the original contract is used. There must be a "meeting of the minds" and that is where the contract is formed... their "meeting of the minds" was with that original contract.

Sent from my SM-G925V using Tapatalk

 

[UAgrad93]

Nothing like dumpster fires in Redstick, Aggieland, and the Barn to keep you warm during this Christmas season!!

 

[OldPlayer]

Correct. Although it is LSU v. Chavis (not A&M, even though they are likely fitting the bill for Chavis). LSU sued for the buyout and Chavis is counter suing for pay he alleges they owe him.

As for fraud, that may be a bit of a reach. The only way I think that may apply is if LSU maliciously used the altered contract and it effected the terms of Chavis' contract with A&M.

This happens more often than you would think. Courts will just throw out ambiguous terms or altered terms and the original contract is used. There must be a "meeting of the minds" and that is where the contract is formed... their "meeting of the minds" was with that original contract.

Sent from my SM-G925V using Tapatalk

If LSU changed the contract and then tried to use it to enforce something, it could be fraud. As with any lawsuit, it will probably be negotiated. However, that won't protect whoever changed it. as @uagrad93 said, it will keep us all warm this winter as we watch the fires burn at LSU, Auburn and A&M.

 

[TerryP]

I expect the word amendment to come up often with this ...

Altered is the correct term. Amendment means both parties agreed to the change.

It won't be a complete loss for LSU. Basically, the contract that Chavis signed will be the one used... no throwing out of the contract as a whole. If, under the original contract, either party is liable to the other, then they will pay up. The altered contract will just be ignored.

More than anything, it just adds to an already embarrassing past few weeks for the LSU Athletic Department.

The counsel for LSU, Bob Barton, is already starting to use the word "amendment." His release/statement:

The ‘alteration’ issue is nothing more than an attempt to divert attention from the real issues. LSU and Mr. Chavis had a valid employment agreement from 2009 until he left the University at the end of 2014. There were multiple amendments to the employment agreement during that time, including the 2012 amendment that Mr. Chavis claims was altered. Importantly, the 2012 contract was ratified in 2013 by a Memorandum of Understanding that extended Mr. Chavis’ contract with LSU by another year, through the end of 2015.

The change that occurred to the 2012 amendment was an innocent, unintentional and immaterial change. Mr. Chavis’ buyout obligation would exist under either reading of the liquidated damages clause, and the alleged “alteration” provided absolutely no benefit to LSU. Just as Mr. Chavis was entitled to his generous salary and other benefits under that agreement, LSU is entitled to enforce the liquidated damages provision of the agreement.

The Court vindicated LSU’s position on its motion to compel and ordered Mr. Chavis to produce records that he has previously withheld. LSU looks forward to obtaining those records and moving this matter toward resolution.”​

 

[Japanese Redneck]

I have altered the deal, pray I do not alter it any further.

 

[rick4bama]

This like last at the movie opcorn2: