Reply to thread

Message

[QUOTE="HuskyHawk, post: 2779416, member: 1414"]
The point of a contract is to set forth the obligations and expectations of two parties to an agreement.  To codify that arrangement in clear language, in the event of a later dispute between the parties.   A contract that does not have consideration on both sides is unenforceable.

So, the point of Ollie's contract was not "money".  The payment of money is a part of it, as are the performance of certain duties and compliance with various rules and expectations.  None of those elements stand alone.  It's one arrangement.  The obligation on Ollie not to violate any NCAA rules is no less important to the contract than the obligation on UConn to pay him.  There is no valid rule of contract interpretation that says "well we really didn't mean this part".

Certainly, UConn and Ollie could have agreed that they would not need to pay him if he violated rules that caused "a scandal that depleted revenue and hindered their ability to rebuild the program".    That is not what they agreed.   Honestly, I don't think even Kevin Ollie believes that that what was expected of him was "just avoid a major scandal and your're good".  Now, Kevin may have believed that if he was doing a great job, they might overlook violations short of those causing a major scandal.   He might even be right.  It doesn't really matter.
[/QUOTE]

Verification

First name of men's bb coach