[Bambi]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

The 'rule' is an attempted liquidated damages provision. Contract law does not allow for punitive provisions in a contract (it encourages 'efficient breach'). So for the 'rule' in the bylaws to have legal effect, the conference will have to establish that the damages of a team leaving the conference are difficult to ascertain and that the liquidated damages provision is a reasonable approximation of what those damages would be (i.e. not a penalty provision).

In other words - MU's intent in leaving is absolutely irrelevant unless you're pursuing a tort claim or something, which would be pretty insane as you'll never prove it up. Instead they'll want to proceed on the K claim. Now if MU can establish that the liquidated damages don't approximate the damages that the IIX suffered in Mizzou leaving (i.e. all that nonsense that Neinas, and you, have been spewing about the conference being stronger without Mizzou), then you're going to have a damn hard time getting those damages awarded. At that point, the damages provision would be read as strictly punitive.

The IIX is going to have to do a hard left and backtrack from their "we're better without Mizzou" if they hope to enforce those terms. And then they'll need to explain how it's 'reasonable' to base the damages on the lost revenue of a television rights deal that wasn't actually altered when Mizzou left.

In other words - in contract law, yeah - you can absolutely "just **** with people and walk away" if the plaintiff isn't actually worse off for your leaving; and if you listen to the hired representative and chief agent of the IIX, they aren't. And no, Missouri hasn't done a stupid thing at all because the law of contracts encourages efficient breach.

Again - just stop.

What is the IIX?