PonyFans.com

Premise:

1. School extends a Recruit a WRITTEN (or oral as in the article below) offer of a scholarship
2. Coach tells recruit that it is binding only if he does not take other official visits(very common)
3, Recruit accepts offer and in RELIANCE upon a school's representations doesn't accept other offers to visit other schools
4. Recruit is fully qualified
5. Is the university required to honor the offer;


Interesting comments by some law professors in the following article. I think its time that the NCAA do something about this. Expony18 could probably answer this in a second-because he is so emerced in unilaterl and bilateral contracts and promissory estoppel that he barely has time to post.


http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/w ... i.recruit/

It will be interesting to see the final ruling on this one.

The question at hand here is more about whether a incoming coach has to honor an outgoing coaches offers or can rescind any or all of them if he is so inclined.

And I think incoming coaches shouldn't be forced to honor former offers. These kids need to realize someday they might actually have to do something other than play football.

Good point.

the legal response from the plaintiff will be that the Head Coach is the disclosed agent and representative of the university who has the express authority to bind the university. Its even more persuasive when you understand that universities subsequently extend written offers to prospects-although not in the case involved in this lawsuit. A corporation certainly can't breach a contract simply because the board of directors hires a new President or CEO. Consider also that the NCAA is running a Letter of Intent system which differs the usual admission procedure for the university at large. Take the issue out of the NCAA context-would a university be bound by an accepted written offer of a scholarship if the Student had fully complied with all aspects of qualifications and standards of conduct.

"In a sense, it allows student-athletes a degree of freedom, because they can make a verbal commitment and not be bound," Davis said. "The question in this case becomes 'Should universities be allowed that same degree of freedom?'"

Just finished reading the article, after a dinner sabbatical. I think this quote sums up my views on the subject real well. If the school extends a written offer, then it becomes a gray area for me. But As every recruiting report as the face of the planet says: "verbal commitments are non-binding"

The only reason people will (and do) have sympathy for this kid is because they perceive the university as the big bad wolf, and not realizing that the kid has the right to exercise the same. I imagine this is the point the defense will make, no?

Stallion wrote:the response from the plaintiff will be that the Head Coach is the disclosed agent and representative of the university who has the express authority to bind the university. Its even more persuasive when you understand that universities extend written offers to prospects. A corporation certainly can't breach a contract simply because the board of directors hires a new President or CEO.

It's not much of a contract if the recipient (recruit) is free to change his mind and go else where. In fact counselor...until the recruit signs the letter of intent, it is not a consensual contract. An offer is just that...an offer and I would think subject to withdrawal. If a company makes me an offer, it is subject to my accepting it. However, until I sign something committing myself to the terms of the offer, it is nothing more than a piece of paper and I would think subject to withdrawal.

a "verbal offer is not binding" though is a conclusion of an apparently untested legal principle. In the broader context of established legal principles the promissory estoppel argument (ie that the student relied upon the promises and representations of the agent(Coach) and his principal (the university) to his detriment) seems to have some merit depending of course on the facts involved in any particular case.

then we get into the bilateral or unilateral contract issue which expony18 will brief for us. But certainly certain contracts can be accepted by performance w/o a signed written contract.

Stallion wrote:Premise:

1. School extends a Recruit a WRITTEN (or oral as in the article below) offer of a scholarship
2. Coach tells recruit that it is binding only if he does not take other official visits(very common)
3, Recruit accepts offer and in RELIANCE upon a school's representations doesn't accept other offers to visit other schools
4. Recruit is fully qualified
5. Is the university required to honor the offer;


Interesting comments by some law professors in the following article. I think its time that the NCAA do something about this. Expony18 could probably answer this in a second-because he is so emerced in unilaterl and bilateral contracts and promissory estoppel that he barely has time to post.


http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/w ... i.recruit/

well in my opinion the NCAA thinks they are untouchable, and because of this mind set Universities and coaches think they are untouchable when it comes to offering scholarships. My sports and entertainment law society has been debating this a lot over the past few months, and it seems to go against your basic concepts of contract law and public policy. This will be an interesting case to follow. Unfortunately I think I know how it is going to end.

edit: i did not read down past your first post... but if you need the definition on unilateral and bilateral check your Black's.... if you are testing my knowledge of contract law i will send you a copy of my transcript and my cover letter

Stallion wrote:a "verbal offer is not binding" though is a conclusion of an apparently untested legal principle. In the broader context of established legal principles the promissory estoppel argument (ie that the student relied upon the promises and representations of the agent(Coach) and his principal (the university) to his detriment) seems to have some merit depending of course on the facts involved in any particular case.

then we get into the bilateral or unilateral contract issue which expony18 will brief for us. But certainly certain contracts can be accepted by performance w/o a signed written contract.

Thank you counselor...I think.

expony18 wrote:

Stallion wrote:Premise:

1. School extends a Recruit a WRITTEN (or oral as in the article below) offer of a scholarship
2. Coach tells recruit that it is binding only if he does not take other official visits(very common)
3, Recruit accepts offer and in RELIANCE upon a school's representations doesn't accept other offers to visit other schools
4. Recruit is fully qualified
5. Is the university required to honor the offer;


Interesting comments by some law professors in the following article. I think its time that the NCAA do something about this. Expony18 could probably answer this in a second-because he is so emerced in unilaterl and bilateral contracts and promissory estoppel that he barely has time to post.


http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/w ... i.recruit/

well in my opinion the NCAA thinks they are untouchable, and because of this mind set Universities and coaches think they are untouchable when it comes to offering scholarships. My sports and entertainment law society has been debating this a lot over the past few months, and it seems to go against your basic concepts of contract law and public policy. This will be an interesting case to follow. Unfortunately I think I know how it is going to end.

Forget the legalese CYA...is a written offer to a recruit a legally binding contract or merely just an offer subject to withdrawal? Forget the "tradition" of honoring the offer...is it a contract...or not?

PK wrote:

Stallion wrote:a "verbal offer is not binding" though is a conclusion of an apparently untested legal principle. In the broader context of established legal principles the promissory estoppel argument (ie that the student relied upon the promises and representations of the agent(Coach) and his principal (the university) to his detriment) seems to have some merit depending of course on the facts involved in any particular case.

then we get into the bilateral or unilateral contract issue which expony18 will brief for us. But certainly certain contracts can be accepted by performance w/o a signed written contract.

Thank you counselor...I think.

Never can tell what they actually mean haha

until recently (if in fact it has changed) i was under the impression that letters of intent we not administered by the NCAA but by the South East Conference - the universities agreed to honor them among themselves but was not a part of the NCAA rules - maybe Jeff in our compliance office can answer this -

promissory estoppel is an equitable theory enforcing obligations which are NOT enforveable contracts. In fact, the Texas Supreme Court recently ruled that if a contract has been signed by the parties, promissory estoppel is unavailiable. So the issue is broader than whether the parties SIGNED a contract. One big weakness in the Recruits argument is that all these representations appear to have been made by assistant coaches and they were not followed by a formal written offer as is common.

PK wrote:Forget the legalese CYA...is a written offer to a recruit a legally binding contract or merely just an offer subject to withdrawal? Forget the "tradition" of honoring the offer...is it a contract...or not?

Of course in this case there was no written offer. Smith's parents never even asked for a written offer.

Some of the past schools (like Portland State who had offered Smith earlier) are STILL offering full scholarships to recruits. The fact that even Portland State doesn't want to offer him is interesting, as I know for a fact that they have made new scholarship offers are recently as last week.