Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="HtownOrange, post: 5038310, member: 622"] The subtle point is that FSU won the matter of the fiduciary. This likely destroys FSU's and now Clemson's claim that the ACC has a fiduciary relationship. I have not read the decision, but the court ruling that the existence of a contract does not prove the fiduciary relationship* undercuts FSU's claims that the ACC owed to FSU a special duty of care (i.e. FSU has to make the same money as the SEC and B1G). Likewise, the substance of Clemson's claims were the same, though much better drafted. Just my take on the news. *A fiduciary relationship is much more legally binding than general contract relationships. Think of a trustee managing a trust v. contracts at arms length. In the trust, the trustee has a much higher level of legal responsibility to the beneficiary, whereas in a contract, both parties are presumed to have entered into the deal knowingly and willingly. [/QUOTE]