[jacketree]

Goose gets to the heart of it, at least for us feeble non-attorneys:

Either Stanford waived the mitigation clause or they didn't. If the termination agreement says that they will pay 2.3 million and doesn't refer to the mitigation clause, I think Stanford has a problem here, no matter what the original contract said.

If a non-feeble attorney is wondering what the "tortious ingredients" are, there's trouble in Litigationville.

Seems Dawkins is accusing Stanford of acting in bad faith.  He and his attorney want their money AND want to set an example. Based on the Merc snippets, can't say I blame them.  Assuming a written settlement agreement (and what morons would not have that in writing?) supersedes the mitigation clause with a final payment and release of all claims by all parties, Stanford can't just then go back and focus on the original contract and its mitigation clause because they take umbrage that Dawkins' new contract is back-loaded, which by the way is very common for fired coaches. Experienced, recently fired coaches come at a steep discount because prior employers are picking up the tab for awhile. Al Groh was essentially free to GT for his failed stint at DC there because Hooville was on the hook for millions; but you do tend to get what you paid for.

None of Stanford's business once Dawkins is released.  Honor the agreement.

[jacketree]

Goose gets to the heart of it, at least for us feeble non-attorneys:

Either Stanford waived the mitigation clause or they didn't. If the termination agreement says that they will pay 2.3 million and doesn't refer to the mitigation clause, I think Stanford has a problem here, no matter what the original contract said.

If a non-feeble attorney is wondering what the "tortious ingredients" are, there's trouble in Litigationville.

Seems Dawkins is accusing Stanford of acting in bad faith.  He and his attorney want their money AND want to set an example. Based on the Merc snippets, can't say I blame them.  Assuming a written settlement agreement (and what morons would not have that in writing?) supersedes the mitigation clause with a final payment and release of all claims by all parties, Stanford can't just then go back and focus on the original contract and its mitigation clause because they take umbrage that Dawkins' new contract is back-loaded, which by the way is very common for fired coaches. Experienced, recently fired coaches come at a steep discount because prior employers are picking up the tab for awhile. Al Groh was essentially free to GT for his failed stint at DC there because Hooville was on the hook for millions; but you do tend to get what you paid for.

None of Stanford's business once Dawkins is released.  Honor the agreement.