Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="UConnNick, post: 2760930, member: 1526"] The fact that the university chose not to strictly enforce any of Calhoun's contract terms should not result in Ollie being successful in arguing that waives any rights they have to enforce similar contract terms forever after. The contract establishes an employment at will relationship between the parties. Either party can terminate the contract subject to the provisions of the agreement. It would be a ludicrous result if an arbitrator or court ruled UConn will never again be allowed to enforce contract terms the same as or similar to Calhoun's because they chose not to enforce them in his case. If that's their ruling, the school might just as well never enter into employment contracts with coaches that contain those provisions, because they'll never be legally allowed to enforce those terms. If that's the best argument Ollie's lawyers can come up with, they better advise him to settle. Frankly, it's likely more of a smokescreen than anything. His lawyers figure the threat of exposing a bunch of Calhoun era garbage will induce the school to make a more favorable settlement offer. It is sad to see the relationship between Ollie and Calhoun has degenerated to this extreme. [/QUOTE]