[CornFed]

[quote author=CornFed link=topic=16802.msg192097#msg192097 date=1492790182]
The ambiguity that has arisen in this case would seem to be caused by sloppy drafting or disingenuous application of the contract's guidance.  If it is the former, the dispute could go on for quite a while.  If it settles quickly, I would suspect the latter.

CornFed, I suspect the "ambiguity" is due to negotiations/agreements/actions taken outside of and subsequent to the employment contract being signed between Dawkins and Stanford. The contract as such is probably well crafted. All it takes is some administrator sending a not so well crafted e-mail saying something like "don't worry about the mitigation clause" to create reasonable basis for a lawsuit. I don't know that this happened, but something like that (or worse, more specific statements from Stanford in the form of a termination agreement) must have happened or Dawkins has no case at all.
[/quote]

If what you say is so, then I would say that my reference to "the latter" would be relavent; unless the difficulty is proving that such a statement were made.

[CornFed]

[quote author=CornFed link=topic=16802.msg192097#msg192097 date=1492790182]
The ambiguity that has arisen in this case would seem to be caused by sloppy drafting or disingenuous application of the contract's guidance.  If it is the former, the dispute could go on for quite a while.  If it settles quickly, I would suspect the latter.

CornFed, I suspect the "ambiguity" is due to negotiations/agreements/actions taken outside of and subsequent to the employment contract being signed between Dawkins and Stanford. The contract as such is probably well crafted. All it takes is some administrator sending a not so well crafted e-mail saying something like "don't worry about the mitigation clause" to create reasonable basis for a lawsuit. I don't know that this happened, but something like that (or worse, more specific statements from Stanford in the form of a termination agreement) must have happened or Dawkins has no case at all.
[/quote]

If what you say is so, then I would say that my reference to "the latter" would be relavent; unless the difficulty is proving that such a statement were made.