Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="HtownOrange, post: 4914738, member: 622"] Good question. DISCLAIMER: I am not a licensed Florida attorney. What I opine on this board is just that, my opinion, and should not be construed as legal advice. Recall that courts generally will enforce contracts, even perceived bad contracts. The presumption is that all parties to contracts have fairly negotiated the terms and agree on the terms before signing the agreement. The party claiming public policy bears the burden of proving why the contract offends the public. More specifically, does the contract affect public services? (Think kickbacks, falsified billing, providing less services than competitors would for the same amount, nepotism, etc. Do not think in terms of dollars only. Recall a bad deal is still a deal if both parties agree to it. More specifically, a perceived bad deal looking backwards is hard to prove. I invested in a mutual fund but would be a multi millionaire if I had invested in Microsoft, Amazon and Google; my choices being consequences good and bad.) Does the agreement cause corruption? Think anything that happens in NJ. (See Rutgers). Will the agreement obstruct or pervert justice? Do you charge a mother protecting her kids from an attacker because she shoots/kills the S.O.B. attacker? (Son of a biscuit, CL; trying to stay on the good side). Public policy would say no, the mother had a right to defend herself and her kids. Also, think obstruction, like (nevermind, this will get to political to explain). Finally, does the agreement promote litigation? Think along the lines of scumbags taking advantage of illegal aliens, selling personal and/or real property under exorbitant or false schemes and either forcing them into litigation or surrender. (I have had to deal with this, yes it is real). There is no solid legal definition of "public policy" but this comes close: The principles, often unwritten, on which social laws are based. (I "benchmarked" -O.K., I stole it- from the interwebs.). Note: this is not the same as a public policy wherein a government creates a solution (or too often so they think) to relieve a social ill. FDR's WPA and CCC, the civil rights laws, Title IX (no, this is not open for debate beyond, start a thread on the proper forum). Anyway, in my opinion, FSU's perceived bad bargaining does not create bad faith on the part of the ACC, especially as all ACC teams suffer equally under the bargain. As to the demise of the Pac12, that in reality is merely the completion of their contract. There was no guarantee they would remain together nor fall apart, this it should not have any impact on the lawsuits at hand. This is too short to give you a full answer but I hope it helps a little. [/QUOTE]

Verification: What is a Syracuse fan's favorite color?