Huh, I guess Gillispie did sign his contract afterall..

[lurch91]

I know the rumors were that Gillispie had never signed his contract with Kentucky, but I guess that was all wrong.  He's suing Kentucky over breach of contract - for $6mill.

[BrewCity83]

It's based on a Memorandum of Understanding, not an actual contract extension.

[Avenue Commons]

An MOU is a negotiated, signed written instrument. Unless there is something in there that qualifies the agreement, that's a written contract.

Maybe one of the corporate law types on the board could elaborate.

[lurch91]

It's based on a Memorandum of Understanding, not an actual contract extension.

This was a written agreement, apparently signed by both parties, outlining expectations and obligations.  That sure as hell sounds like a contract to me.

[BrewCity83]

I thought the MOU was not signed by Gillispie.

[Fullodds]

Not only did he sign it but the university enforced certain terms against Gillispie preventing him from some promotional/rep work in Houston.  Kentucky is going to have a hard time arguing to Gillispie that he might be in breach of the MOU and then in court argue that the MOU was not an agreement.

Offer-Acceptance-Consideration-Performance....Gillispie wins.

[lurch91]

I thought the MOU was not signed by Gillispie.

Points up at the title of the thread.

If he hadn't signed it, his $6 million claim would be thrown out of court in a heartbeat.  Gillispie's attorney would be talking about "implied contracts" and "verbal contracts" trying to get him some compensation/severance.

Also, it's interesting the last line of that article states:

He is not coaching right now.

Implying he will be shortly?

[Nukem2]

Of course, Kentucky was paying BG in accordance with the MOU (whether signed or not).  That would also come to bear in this situation.

[Coach Norman Dale]

"The lawsuit filed in federal court in Dallas contends the school's athletics association . . . has committed fraud because the university never intended to honor the agreement."

The fraud claim is likely to be really tough to prove.

[PE8983]

http://media.kentucky.com/smedia/2009/05/27/16/gillispielawsuit.source.prod_affiliate.79.pdf

Scroll towards the bottom.

[lurch91]

This will be settled out of court.  Gillispie is just showing he's ready to play hard ball.

Just like Buzz's case will be settled out of court.  I do not expect there to be a trial in his case.

[lurch91]

http://media.kentucky.com/smedia/2009/05/27/16/gillispielawsuit.source.prod_affiliate.79.pdf

Scroll towards the bottom.

Page 25 of 29, specifically.

Wow, Kentucky looks to be in a bind, if you read C.27 anc C.28 in the pdf.  Kentucky was the ones that ended the employment contract negotiations, and instead referrenced the MOU as the binding contract between the two parties.

[Tom Crean's Tanning Bed]

The memorandum of understanding should be held up in court as a valid contract.  Kentucky's got no real defense on that end, since it is considered more or less a valid contract (although not necessarily titled a contract).

The fraud claim, though, Gillespie's got no real claim to.  He needs to prove some sort of malicious intent on the part of UK to get him to leave A&M. 

In the end, this will probably end up settled out of court.  I wouldn't be surprised if BCG does collect on most of what he's asking for.

[ErickJD08]

If either side started to enforce or perform within the contract, you don't need a signature.  Alot of times (not all), signature just represents the intent to enter into a contract (acceptance).  If there is proof of performance, then that can qualify as either party's intention to enter into a binding agreement.

[Hards Alumni]

well done the last two of you.

your law or prelaw profs would be proud.

[lurch91]

Hahaha, this is just getting good.  Kentucky filed a counter-suit, which was expected.

[Tom Crean's Tanning Bed]

well done the last two of you.

your law or prelaw profs would be proud.

Actually, believe or not, not a law student/lawyer.  CPA-in-training, so all I took was a couple of business law courses.  But thanks for the complement though 

[77ncaachamps]

It would behoove the university to settle the matter quickly.

One can only imagine UK hoops having to deal with two prolonged messes - Gillespie's suit and Calipari's alleged indiscretions at Memphis - during the AAU season and recruiting period.

[ChicosBailBonds]

An MOU is a negotiated, signed written instrument. Unless there is something in there that qualifies the agreement, that's a written contract.

Maybe one of the corporate law types on the board could elaborate.

Most interesting to me is that he filed in Texas.  UK filed a countersuit today in Kentucky.   I'm sure BG felt that if he filed in Kentucky he would have no chance of winning, but by filing in Texas did he make a procedural mistake that will have the lawsuit dismissed?

[Coach Norman Dale]

Most interesting to me is that he filed in Texas.  UK filed a countersuit today in Kentucky.   I'm sure BG felt that if he filed in Kentucky he would have no chance of winning, but by filing in Texas did he make a procedural mistake that will have the lawsuit dismissed?

What BG has to show is that in negotiating the deal -- apparently in Texas per his suit -- that UK had sufficient presence in or contact within the State of Texas to render it subject to jurisdiction of its laws on this matter.  This will involve an analysis of the amount and type of communication that occurred there (including calls into the State, etc.), physical presence in the State by UK officials for meetings, negotiations, etc.

My quick scan of the complaint leads me to believe he will be successful in keeping it in Texas and UK is likely to have to re-file what should become a counter-claim in Texas as well.

I wholeheartedly agree that a filing in KY might have been quitee problematic for BG.  But the facts -- as I understand them -- seem to bode well for him on the basic breach of contract claim.  I still think the fraud claim will fail as he has to show that they intended to commit fraud when they hired him and that they actually defrauded him in some manner.  I just do not see that here.

[HouWarrior]

I am a Houston attorney/MU alum, and know Gillespie's attorney...a sort of file first, run to the press conference, plaintiff's lawyer (he's good). The MOU is a contract, but it lacks the detail terms usually in an employment agreement ; especially lacking are terms "gauranteeing" payout on termination. G was to be paid $sum per year, and MOU referenced a term (5 years?), but it is silent as to remedies/obligations on early termination, its grounds, and there is not any obligation of UK to payout future years. Analogize and think of a NFL multi year contract, which can be cut off, including no pay, by cutting the player...vs. NBA contract: you can cut him, but contract "gaurantees" the full payout. The suit is just leverage/home court forum choosing; it doesnt improve the vague unresolved brevity of the MOU. I'd guess a 25-40% lump sum settlement, depending, a bit, on how personal, or public the war of words.

[classof70]

http://media.kentucky.com/smedia/2009/05/27/16/gillispielawsuit.source.prod_affiliate.79.pdf

Scroll towards the bottom.

I'd say this Complaint goes a little beyond Rule 8 requirements of "a short and plain statement of the grounds" on which relief may be granted.  It's a autobiography.  Whatever happened to notice pleading???!!!  Terrrible pleading!!

[thanooj]

Also, it's interesting the last line of that article states: quote he is not coaching right now.
Implying he will be shortly?

ok, so this might be a little far fetched conspiracy theory in the making, but whattayathink?

If we have not hired an assistant coach yet could the delay be that Buzz and Gillispie are waiting for this to resolve a bit before inking gillispie to an MU contract?  Does the fact that he is not coaching "right now" have any bearing on the outcome of the suit?

I am shooting from the hip and have not looked into this very deep at all, but just wanted to see your thoughts.

[lurch91]

As far a conspiracy theories go, I would think that signing as an assistant somewhere would strength Gillispie's arguement that Kentucky damaged his reputation in the coaching circles, etc. and possibly help Gillispie recover the punitive damages he's seeking.

[GGGG]

ok, so this might be a little far fetched conspiracy theory in the making, but whattayathink?

If we have not hired an assistant coach yet could the delay be that Buzz and Gillispie are waiting for this to resolve a bit before inking gillispie to an MU contract?  Does the fact that he is not coaching "right now" have any bearing on the outcome of the suit?

I am shooting from the hip and have not looked into this very deep at all, but just wanted to see your thoughts.

Gillispie used to be the head coach at Kentucky.  The previous head coaches at Kentucky dating back to Rupp went to be head coaches at Minnesota (Smith), the Boston Celtics (Pitino), Oklahoma State (Sutton) and simply retired (Hall and Rupp).  I would be amazed to see him take an assitant's postion with one of his former assistants rather than wait a year when some good job will open up for him somewhere.