I’m laughing on the outside, but crying on the inside at this. Duke Football has officially proven - in a court of law - that it sucks:
A Franklin, Ky., Circuit Court judge sided with a devilishly clever argument and ruled in favor of Duke University yesterday in a breach of contract lawsuit brought by the University of Louisville.
Judge Phillip J. Shepherd agreed with Duke’s lawyers — that its football team is so bad that any Division I replacement would do. U of L sued Duke for $450,000 — or a series with another Atlantic Coast Conference opponent — after the Blue Devils backed out of a four-game football contract with three dates remaining.
The contract called for a penalty of $150,000 per game if a date with a “team of similar stature” could not be arranged. Duke’s lawyers argued that the Blue Devils, who are 6-45 the past five seasons, are so bad that any team would be a suitable replacement.
LOL! And this is why, my fellow SIMPians, that Duke Football has a new (dare I say, legitimate) head coach, a new Atheletic Director, and a strategic plan to (god forbid) do everything it can to get better in this sport!
4 Comments until now
Well, according to their own argument, they probably can’t get worse. So, I’d agree some degree of better is likely ahead
I disagree with Duke and the Judge… if the benefit of U of L’s bargain was to play against a crappy team (a.k.a. guaranteed win), there may not be too many other teams equally crappy for U of L to beat up on. In that instance, there are no teams of “similar stature” and Duke is liable for the damages.
Then UofL should’ve written the contract to say “similar ineptitude,” not “stature.” The word “stature,” by it’s very definition, has a positive connotation. According to Merriam-Webster online: Stature (n.) - “quality or status gained by growth, development, or achievement.” I’ll doubt the contract said anything about benefits derived from a guaranteed win. Even if U of L argued that (don’t know if they did), I would presume you’d agree that they’ve have had a very thin contractual limb to stand on.
Despite your ability to use a dictionary, Borg, “stature” is a relative term. One can have diminutive stature brought on by a lack of “growth, development or achievement”. Furthermore, the term “stature” may refer to Duke’s “stature” as the crappiest of all the crappy teams. Crappiness could be Duke’s “status gained by… achievement”. Finally, a contract doesn’t need to “say anything about the benefits derived from a guaranteed win” in order to be valid. It is the text of the document and the understanding of the parties that govern interpretation of the agreement. The term “benefit of the bargain” only means that U of L got what they bargained for — i.e. playing a crappy team.
I admire the lengths you go to, though, to drive home the point that your alma mater sucks.
Add your Comment!