OK, attorney members, how can the notion that the liquidattion clause of a contract HE SIGNED is unconscionalbe be an affirmative defense?
Are we not accountable for our actions in contract law? It' s not like he was relying on a lazy public defender to handle his negotiations.
If it weren't so important, I'd think Geno was joking.
From my employment law days, a provision of an employment contract can be unconscionable if the employer can exert undue influence over the employee (think Colonel Parker and Elvis) or the terms of the contract are extremely unfair. Arguably, four years times Geno's annual salary may be extremely unfair, given that KSU found a successor right away and maybe for a lot less money. My guess is Geno didn't bother to have an attorney look over the contract before he signed it.
And no, I don't think KSU will lose its "innocence"; this ain't an NCAA infraction.
Also, as the article kinda sorta says, a liquidated damages clause has to be a reasonable estimate of damages that will be suffered in the event of breach, i.e., it can't be a penalty. Essentially, the parties at the outset are saying that rather than going through the process of fighting about how much damages were incurred as a result of any breach, we'll just put that figure at X. But if X is completely detached from reality and way too harsh, a court can strike it out as unconscionable. That's a judgment call, but that's why they're called "judges".
It could possibly be attorney malpractice to not argue unconscionability in a case like this, given the uncertainty surrounding how much value Geno added to the Kent State program. Then again, the more uncertainty there is, the more likely a liquidated damages clause will be upheld.
Basically, it's just lawyers being lawyers. They'll settle for a $100k-$200k, Bradley will pick up the tab, and Kent State will continue to be a brown stain on the MAC's mattress.