After all the conversation here about commitable and non-commitable offers, I thought this article was pretty interesting. The outcome could force schools to be much more specific. http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/writers/andy_staples/02/29/hawaii.recruit/index.html
I wouldn't be surprised if it did change. Our society is partial to the "Little guy" and compared to a program, a kid out of HS is that "Little guy". May be wrong but based on the things I see in education, I would be surprised if he doesn't end up with a free ride. We should throw up a poll to see how our members feel about whether or not a man's word should be binding, if they in fact, did say that; and, if a kid receives a verbal offer, and accepts, should the school honor it? To me, this case goes a step further and they told him he was accepted which is more than them offering and him accepting- if that makes sense the way I explain it. On the other side of the coin, it would prevent kids from changing their minds too. Isn't a sale still considered legal and binding if an offer is made and the other party accepts?
Technically, this guy didn't "accept" the offer. He cannot officially accept the offer until signing day, and Hawaii pulled it before then.
That's not what his lawyer says. :wave: And that's where we may see some changes like how we define "Official". I understand your point though but you never know. I've always said people can't abuse you unless you allow them to and as long as nobody complains, stands up, people with the upper hand seldom make reforms- assuming there's a need, I'm not convinced there is here; however, one lawsuit can bring about a lot of change in anything.
That's not necessarily true. If he could somehow prove that there was an oral offer and that the offer was accepted, that should be enough. Contracts don't have to be in writing. The difficult part, of course, will be proving that such an offer was ever made. It'll be interesting to see if the promisory estopple (in LA it would be detrimental reliance--an argument that he relied on their promise to his detriment) strategy works.
If they had not told him not to talk to other schools, the suit would probably not stand a chance. I don't think a verbal offer is a committable offer. Doesn't it have to be in writing to be committable?
It is very questionable that a verbal offer falls under the category of contract. Secondly, for a contract to be valid there has to be consideration. I don't see consideration here.
How isn't there consideration? :huh: Hawaii would be getting his services as a football player, and the kid would be getting free tuition. Also, verbal contracts occur all the time, why different here (I think there's a misconception that a "contract" is always a formal document drawn up by lawyers. It doesn't have to be that rigid a process). Also, for those who are interested, had this been in LA, consideration would not have been necessary (just lawful cause).
well, the thing that stood out to me as most damaging to Hawaii's side of the deal was this: obviously, it's gonna be the Smith's word versus Hawaii's. the red flag to Smith should have been this: for those that can answer, my question would be where would the trial be held? I can't imagine a fair trial for Smith if it's held in Hawaii, the odds would be stacked tremendously against him. Is this a local jurisdiction or national or what?
