Inducing someone to break a contract is the definition of tortious interference with a contract. Doing it during the season affecting a coaches ability to coach would definitely be actionable. Which is why they only go through agents at that time. This is why no one knows anything. If you have a “source” the best they know is what the agent says.
Official Jeff Brohm Poll
- Thread starter New Pal Boiler
- Start date
As a licensed attorney in the state of Indiana who specializes in tort cases I trust my knowledge more than yours. Especially since this is a contract in the State of Indiana and would be governed by Indiana law. Go back to your bridge troll.
With all due respect, that’s not really how big business works. This is big business.
Cite the Indiana cases that demonstrate plaintiffs prevailing on their claims of tortious interference in contracts with buyouts and agreed-to liquidated damages clauses. Enlighten the laity, please. Quick add: please include cases that were inchoate breaches by the defendant. We simple folk want apples to apples comparisons.
Last edited:
I get paid to do legal research, don’t do it for free on the internet. Besides there would only be caselaw on the issue if it wasn’t clear and the Indiana Court of Apoeals has to rule on the issue. I’m unaware of any agreed to liquidated damages clause in Coach Brohm’s contract, and I am not sure it would be enforceable against Purdue if it was shown that an early approach by Louisville caused damages to Purdue university, especially if it is shown that it caused the university to miss out on a bowl game. Which is why as I have said there will have been no approach to Brohm directly by Louisville, the most they would do is make an offer to his agent.
That’s fair. Something about your first statement didn’t seem correct - that mere inducement is the definition of tortious interference. It didn’t take much research to debunk that.
Ummm, wouldn't it likely be moved to a U.S. District Court given the diversity of Louisville and Purdue whom I would assume to be the relevant tortious interference parties?
I’ll get off this soon, but you are correct it would be removed to U.S. District Court, in this case the Northern District of Indiana assuming the case was filed in Tippecanoe County, but they would still be interpreting Indiana Law. Unless the contract contained a choice of laws clause for a different venue, but that would be unlikely.
Additionally, would the site of any tortious interference be Kentucky given the Louisville and Brohm's agent are located there? Would that also not mean the Kentucky law would be applicable, since the issue isn't Brohm's contract but Louisville's tortious act?
The tortious act is interfering with the Indiana contract. The location of the contract controls venue. Purdue could choose to sue Louisville in Kentucky, which would be a bad idea. But the court would still interpret Indiana Law. Unless like I said there is a choice of laws provision to the contract that specifies a different venue.
He's definitely represented. Otherwise, the legal discussion, while interesting in theory, is irrelevant in practice. Totally, completely irrelevant, at least in respect of whether he stays at Purdue or goes to Louisville. Lastly, he could knock all this down right now but has chosen to not do that. There's a straightforward reason he's chosen to keep his options open. He wants to preserve them, and he will.
You really think Louisville’s AD is going to break the law/NCAA rules on this? This is definitely uncharted waters for Purdue fans since your coaches are not regularly targeted. I can assure you Vince Tyra is conducting our coaching search by the book.
How Purdue lured Jeff Brohm to save its struggling football program
https://www.jconline.com/story/spor...-brohm-purdues-football-commitment/612979001/
A call was arranged with Brohm for the next day with the help of DHR International, the search firm Purdue used in the process, and Brohm’s agent and close friend, Shawn Freibert.
Sick of hearing the "home is where the heart is" BS with Brohm. Sure its great for some people but others want to set out on their own and make a name elsewhere too. Hope JB is that guy. Tennessee has been hoping for Manning to ride back into town to save them for years, whether its Vols or Titans. You have to have a blind faith and love a city/state that much to base your whole youth/professional life there.
Telling someone about a job is a far cry from “inducing”. That case would get laughed out of court and the lawyer bringing it should be sanctioned.
I stand corrected. It was reported that during his negotiations with Purdue that he'd never had an agent while negotiating deals at WKU and his other jobs.
Jeff's net worth is estimated at 18 million . He was an NFL QB for 9 yrs. Head coach in college for 5 yrs. He drives a 2004 Honda for christ sake. It wont be about money. That much I'm sure of. His dad is an accountant and mom managed his money while he was in the nfl. Think about it.
Be careful of coach speak. We have heard it many times at Louisville. I watched Nick Saben on a Friday night say" I am the coach at Miami. I will be the coach of the Dolphins next year" At 11.00am the next morning he accepted the Alabama job. Just sayin
That is how I recall it. I didn't follow his negotiations with Purdue and only in the last month became aware that he has an agent.
Agree on the coach speak. We’ve all heard it. But I do think Jeff is cut from a different cloth than typical. And I think he could’ve been far more vague and non-commital (like he was last Monday) than he was in the two television interviews on Saturday. He absolutely sounded like someone who was staying. As someone else said, if he’s leaving don’t ever play poker with him.
I get that people want him to stay, including me, but stop making excuses. He is simply not being transparent, straight forward nor plain spoken. That's his right but to imply that he he is doing so is simply silly.
It means your statement “If he was staying, and knew it....he'd say it” is just not the case in the world of big business. It’s called leverage. He has it. And he knows it.
So you think JB is staying st Purdue but working the situation for more money?
I’m with you. Not a lawyer, but debated one who was on the Metro Council in Nashville when the Oilers moved there. He said the 30 year lease was meaningless if another city wanted to steal the team. I told the audience thst would constitute “tortious interference” and the audience applauded, the Metro councilman knew he’d been had and the public voted 59-41 to approve the deal in a public referendum on 5/7/96.
Not necessarily. Could be working it for any number of reasons. Or not at all. But why give up the leverage if you don’t have to? Information is power.
The only thing he could’ve said on Saturday that sounded more emphatic than what he did would’ve been an outright statement that he’s staying. And that would’ve been stupid for him to do. The two comments he made - particularly the one on the B1G tailgate show (which he didn’t have to go on the show at all but he still did) - had a much different tone than his original comment last Monday. If he stays, he played this perfectly well. If he leaves, he fooled me. But if he’s leaving there’s no reason to intentionally go seek out a spotlight to make announcements that suggest otherwise. Most coaches in that situation are only commenting when cornered and forced to do so.
It seems to me, the mere fact that Coach Brohm's comments result in people feeling the need to explain his meaning based on tone proves my point.
I think his meaning and tone were clear. Did you see the two interviews. I merely interpreted his motivation to speak when he had no reason to do so on the Tailgate. There’s zero reason if he’s already decided he’s going to Lousiville to do that - at least that I can think of. Unless he’s intentionally trying to be duplicitous - which isn’t the Brohm I think I know.
I'm not trying to be a di#k about it. As I said, I hope he stays. But to me making him more than what he seems to be is silly. IMHO there are two operative scenarios - either
1 - he is not fully committed to staying at Purdue but is unwilling to say so, OR
2 - is fully committed to staying but is about the money and is trying to get a better contract despite having one currently in place.
His call, and I am still okay with it.
whether he leaves or not I wish UL nothing but failure and misery.
He’s not being intentionally duplicitous, he’s being intentionally vague, all so he can preserve his options and fully consider whatever UofL or anyone else offers him. It’s really that simple.
As for the tortuous interference issue, it’s nonsense. Anyone can offer him a job and he can accept or reject it. He may be obligated under his existing contract to fulfill certain requirements if he breaks it (and Purdue could sue him or any other party for damages), but arguing that Louisville would be engaging in tortuous interference by pursuing him and offering him a new job would get a lawyer laughed out of court.
I agree with your scenarios. And based on his Saturday’s comments I think #2 is more likely than #1. His comments are clearly in line with that scenario. Just my two cents.
“He has a job to do at Purdue and he’s going to go ahead and win the next few games and make it to a bowl game,” Karlaftis said of Brohm’s message to him. “And then he said if anything came up he’s going to be honest with me. He’s going to tell me what’s going on. And that’s about it.”
https://247sports.com/college/louis...nt-committed-to-Purdue-125001366/#125001366_1
https://247sports.com/college/louis...nt-committed-to-Purdue-125001366/#125001366_1
Similar threads
