In Reply to: Re: Arkansas wants their money back, and they should get it posted by TJJ on April 23, 2025 at 17:30:10
But, like I said. The author of the article is using two different measures of damages, what's already been paid or buyout clause (conceivably, the buyout clause could state that the buyout is what's already been paid).
You don't have to read the terms of the agreement to understand that someone who breaches an enforceable contract is going to be liable for damages in some measure. This is very basic stuff, TJJ. Madden breached his contract for NIL compensation. He's going to be liable for damages.
Where you may be confused is you may be assuming that if there is no buyout clause .... no liability! That is incorrect. It's still a breach. There would still be liability. If there is a buyout clause, Madden can remedy the breach by paying the buyout. The buyout clause just predetermines the liability amount. It's like a liquidate damages clause. If there isn't a buyout clause, that doesn't mean you can just walk away from your contract. It means that damages will have to be determined, either in negotiation or in court. But, barring a defense to enforcement (see discussion of Aguilar, below) and I don't see any defense to enforcement here, Madden will certainly be liable for damages in some amount. No one needs to read the contract to know that. You just have to know that there was a contract. Unless you're positing that the contract may have said "Madden is free to transfer to another school and won't be liable to us," which is so unlikely it's not really worth discussing.