Who the heck cares about this. He is a coach. His job is to produce W's. Give the man a few years at Michigan to prove himself and beat OSU. If not, then send his ass packing.
MORGANTOWN, W.Va. -- Rich Rodriguez may present evidence to try to prove his claim he was fraudulently induced to sign a coaching contract with West Virginia that included a $4 million buyout clause he now refuses to pay.
Steel, the placement in the article is weird, but he is able to try present evidence which would contradict the signed contract as stated above. Prior to today that was not an option. Not sure what evidence he has but I guess we'll know soon enough.
Am I missing something? What victory did Rodriguez's lawyers have? You did..they scored big today!!..The Judge did not accuse them of petitioning a frivolous lawsuit and made them pay on the spot!!!..I think they will look at that as a win!!
Not sure what evidence he has but I guess we'll know soon enough.
I think the evidence he wants to present are various statements made by Garrison about how he did believe in buyout clauses and that he would discuss with RR the possibility of lowering his or completly doing away with it.
This was a victory for RR's side. If the Judge had granted WVU's motion to dismiss this based on the parol evidence rule then basically RR would not have a case. As it stands the judge ruled today that it would be up to the trier of fact (jury or judge) to decide if his claims have any merit.
I think the evidence he wants to present are various statements made by Garrison about how he did believe in buyout clauses and that he would discuss with RR the possibility of lowering his or completly doing away with it.
But, isn't all of that going to be he said, she said stuff? I don't see how the court will ever be able to decipher or prove who said what. And then we go back to formal, signed contract, right? I don't see where any of this is worth a hill of beans..
His victory is being allowed to argue that he was fraudulently tricked into signing the contract. Usually, you can't argue someone tricked you into signing a contract with verbal promises if the topic of the verbal promises is covered in the contract. For example, if you contract to buy my car and the contract says the car has 100,000 miles, you can't claim I tricked you into signing it by telling you it had 50,000 miles. The topic of the verbal promise is covered in the written contract, so you should have known better.
The judge could have pretty much ended Rodriguez's whole defense here, but instead, he ruled that the verbal promises weren't covered by the contract, and Rodriguez can argue that he was tricked into signing. If he had ruled otherwise, this case would be almost over.
The first sentence you fool. wvu tried to stop him from bringing in that evidence, the judge ruled in favor of Coach Rod and against wvu. Your ignorance only proves that you must be a fan of wvu.
I think the evidence he wants to present are various statements made by Garrison about how he did believe in buyout clauses and that he would discuss with RR the possibility of lowering his or completly doing away with it.
Someone feel free to correct me if I'm wrong... but wasn't the RR contract signed before Garrison was in place as President???
If this is true, doesn't it seem a bit strange that RR is basing his defense on alleged verbal deals after the fact?
I bought a vette last year in March and my buddy who works at the dealership said I could have gotten it for 8K less in December.... Now the car dealer is not honering the $63,000 price tag -- I think I'll sue.
Someone feel free to correct me if I'm wrong... but wasn't the RR contract signed before Garrison was in place as President???
cgrib - you are absolutely right. Hardesty was still Pres. when RR signed the contract. I was just citing what I believe RR is arguing. I think WVU might be able to counter that since Garrison was not yet the Pres of the university at the time he supposedly made the comments then RR should not have relied on them. Although, the fact that WVU allowed Garrison to be present for the negotiations probably did give him the appearance of authority. It is a case of he said he said and I am not sure that RR will be able to prove by clear and convincing evidence that he was fraudulently induced in signing the contract.
Again, I don't believe Garrison was present at contract negotiations in the early spring of last year... am I wrong?
When did he assume the job? Before the end of the spring semester?
I believe the date in question is when RR actually met to sign the contract. Aug. 24th, I think. RR claims this is when Garrison made him promises. Garrison became President on Sept. 1.
