Jimmy Williams is now suing Tubby Smith personally

Donate To GopherHole


This may be a stupid question - but can anyone clarify this for me...if it was all verbal, is that a binding agreement? Unless he actually had an offer, in writing, does he really have a case?

I just ask that, because personally, I know I don't consider an job offer set in stone until I get an offer, in writing, and pass all the background stuff it's contingent upon.
 

I do virtually all my business on a handshake. In this day and age you can wiggle out of just about any written agreement if your lawyer is good enough. Agreements tend to be only as good as the people you are dealing with. Jimmy Williams was probably too old school and believed Tubby had offered him a job when Tubby told him he was offering him a job. He should chalk it up to education and move on. It is the times we live in.
 

GopherLady said:
This may be a stupid question - but can anyone clarify this for me...if it was all verbal, is that a binding agreement? Unless he actually had an offer, in writing, does he really have a case?

I just ask that, because personally, I know I don't consider an job offer set in stone until I get an offer, in writing, and pass all the background stuff it's contingent upon.
Click to expand...

I'm not an attorney but I believe that some verbal agreements are binding. I don't know if that applies to employment law or if an offer from Tubby that did not come formally from the university is binding. Was salary, vacation, benefits discussed? Then, of course, there is the issue of witnesses to any alleged conversation.

I don't think that Williams will win, but he will likely embarrass a few people. That may drive a settlement.
 


Oral Agreements

I think they can be binding if I remember Business Law 3001. However, in this day and age, virtually all offers of employment are contingent on a "background check" which can include the various criminal stuff, but just about anything else the employer deems necessary to check. The background check obviously did not pass muster with U administration, and so the offer was rescinded. While not real common, it is not unusual either. I know it has saved me at lest once in a potential hire.

I feel bad for Jimmy, but he should have understood that with his history at the U, there would be questions and he should have gotten it in writing.

This really is a mess.
 

williams

I guess Williams has figured he will never work again. Next he will try to take Tubby to Judge Judy.
 

I admit I know very little about this

But didn't Jimmy Williams know he had at least some bad blood with the U and that him coming back might be a problem? Wouldn't he be obligated to tell Tubby that?

This guy needs to let it go.
 

What kind of person, in this day and age, with the money and status involved resigns his former position to take another without a formal agreement in place?
 



Any contract is valid as long as there is an offer, an acceptance, and consideration. It doesn't matter if it is oral or not. Things like real estate have to follow the statute of frauds, which means it has to be in writing among other things. But employment contracts do not need to be in writing. If the court determines that Tubby's actions constituted an offer and that there was a valid acceptance, there will certainly be a contract found. The consideration would be the salary, etc.

Even if there wasn't a contract, Williams would have a great case here based on promissory estoppel. To satisfy promissory estoppel Williams would have to show that he was promised something, that he relied on it, and that he acted on it in a way that caused detriment to him. It's pretty clear that he relied on it by quitting his job and that was also detrimental to him because he wasn't receiving wages. So as long as the court finds that Tubby made a valid promise, Williams could recover under that even without a breach of contract.

I don't know all the facts of the case, but it looks to me like all of this will hinge on whether the court either finds Tubby's language to constitute an offer or a promise. If they can find either of those, Williams should walk away with a nice chunk of change.
 

The Truth said:
What kind of person, in this day and age, with the money and status involved resigns his former position to take another without a formal agreement in place?
Click to expand...

Well, it depends on what your definition of a "formal agreement" is. If you mean a signed contract, then the answer is - no - many people work without a signed contract. Remember, Tubby Smith worked for several months here without a formal signed deal. Billy Gillispie never signed his formal deal with Kentucky, if I recall correctly. I believe they each had a "memorandum of understanding" or a "letter of intent." I suppose that's what Williams should have gotten in this case, too, but I'm guessing tons of assistant coaches move around based on verbal agreements, etc. Remember, it is an absolute rat-race at that time of year with assistant coaching hires. Speed is very important. If Williams thought he had an offer from Tubby, he was doing his previous employer - Okie State - a favor by letting them know swiftly so they could find a replacement at a time when good assistants are in high demand.

Remember, if a guy with the character of Tubby Smith offers you a job, you probably figure you have the job. Tubby apparently had the carpet pulled out from under him by the administration, which I think based on the circumstances - was reasonable. Tubby thought he had autonomy to hire, but as it turned out it, he didn't - based on whom he was hoping to hire.

It really sounds like an unfortunate situation, but I agree with Sour - I think Williams is entitled to some compensation.
 

Sour1729 said:
Any contract is valid as long as there is an offer, an acceptance, and consideration. It doesn't matter if it is oral or not. Things like real estate have to follow the statute of frauds, which means it has to be in writing among other things. But employment contracts do not need to be in writing. If the court determines that Tubby's actions constituted an offer and that there was a valid acceptance, there will certainly be a contract found. The consideration would be the salary, etc.

Even if there wasn't a contract, Williams would have a great case here based on promissory estoppel. To satisfy promissory estoppel Williams would have to show that he was promised something, that he relied on it, and that he acted on it in a way that caused detriment to him. It's pretty clear that he relied on it by quitting his job and that was also detrimental to him because he wasn't receiving wages. So as long as the court finds that Tubby made a valid promise, Williams could recover under that even without a breach of contract.

I don't know all the facts of the case, but it looks to me like all of this will hinge on whether the court either finds Tubby's language to constitute an offer or a promise. If they can find either of those, Williams should walk away with a nice chunk of change.
Click to expand...

Couldn't Minnesota and Smith argue that Smith wasn't empowered to make that offer and that the final decision rested not in his hands but in the Minnesota AD's? Isn't what Williams is arguing boils down to who had the authority to make the offer in the first place? If Smith was given tne power to offer and hire whom he chose, without consultation with the Minnesota AD, then I think Williams has a somewhat solid case. But if Smith is just an employee, who has to answer to others on hiring decisions and it is they who make the final determination, then the offer itself was never valid in the first place in regards to the University of Minnesota.

Basically what I'm saying is if the court found the language constituted a contract but that contract only was valid IF the University knew and agreed upon the terms in advance, is Smith on the hook because the offer itself wasn't made in good faith?
 

tjgopher said:
Well, it depends on what your definition of a "formal agreement" is. If you mean a signed contract, then the answer is - no - many people work without a signed contract. Remember, Tubby Smith worked for several months here without a formal signed deal. Billy Gillispie never signed his formal deal with Kentucky, if I recall correctly. I believe they each had a "memorandum of understanding" or a "letter of intent." I suppose that's what Williams should have gotten in this case, too, but I'm guessing tons of assistant coaches move around based on verbal agreements, etc. Remember, it is an absolute rat-race at that time of year with assistant coaching hires. Speed is very important. If Williams thought he had an offer from Tubby, he was doing his previous employer - Okie State - a favor by letting them know swiftly so they could find a replacement at a time when good assistants are in high demand.

Remember, if a guy with the character of Tubby Smith offers you a job, you probably figure you have the job. Tubby apparently had the carpet pulled out from under him by the administration, which I think based on the circumstances - was reasonable. Tubby thought he had autonomy to hire, but as it turned out it, he didn't - based on whom he was hoping to hire.

It really sounds like an unfortunate situation, but I agree with Sour - I think Williams is entitled to some compensation.
Click to expand...


I'm not talking about a signed agreement but a formal, written offer provided by the other party..exactly like an MOU (which, I might add, we will find out very shortly how far the goes in establishing the construction of a valid contract) or some sort of offer sheet. It seems to me that Williams left in haste his previous position before getting everything in order. Of course he assumed the other party (Smith) was acting in good faith but he still should have gotten some sort of formal offer in writing.
 



Sour1729 said:
Any contract is valid as long as there is an offer, an acceptance, and consideration. It doesn't matter if it is oral or not. Things like real estate have to follow the statute of frauds, which means it has to be in writing among other things. But employment contracts do not need to be in writing. If the court determines that Tubby's actions constituted an offer and that there was a valid acceptance, there will certainly be a contract found. The consideration would be the salary, etc.

Even if there wasn't a contract, Williams would have a great case here based on promissory estoppel. To satisfy promissory estoppel Williams would have to show that he was promised something, that he relied on it, and that he acted on it in a way that caused detriment to him. It's pretty clear that he relied on it by quitting his job and that was also detrimental to him because he wasn't receiving wages. So as long as the court finds that Tubby made a valid promise, Williams could recover under that even without a breach of contract.

I don't know all the facts of the case, but it looks to me like all of this will hinge on whether the court either finds Tubby's language to constitute an offer or a promise. If they can find either of those, Williams should walk away with a nice chunk of change.
Click to expand...

Thanks, I definitely trust an attorney in training on this one!

Probably another dumb question - but how does one show he was promised something, if he has no written record, or tape recording, or other documentation?
 

The Truth said:
Couldn't Minnesota and Smith argue that Smith wasn't empowered to make that offer and that the final decision rested not in his hands but in the Minnesota AD's? Isn't what Williams is arguing boils down to who had the authority to make the offer in the first place? If Smith was given tne power to offer and hire whom he chose, without consultation with the Minnesota AD, then I think Williams has a somewhat solid case. But if Smith is just an employee, who has to answer to others on hiring decisions and it is they who make the final determination, then the offer itself was never valid in the first place in regards to the University of Minnesota.

Basically what I'm saying is if the court found the language constituted a contract but that contract only was valid IF the University knew and agreed upon the terms in advance, is Smith on the hook because the offer itself wasn't made in good faith?
Click to expand...

The University could argue that and likely get out of it. But then it would all fall on Tubby, as he would be seen as "acting as an agent of the University without authority."
 

GopherLady said:
Thanks, I definitely trust an attorney in training on this one!

Probably another dumb question - but how does one show he was promised something, if he has no written record, or tape recording, or other documentation?
Click to expand...

Not a dumb question at all. That's why I said earlier I didn't know all the facts of the case. Whether he has any documentation or not is completely evidentiary. It will be interesting to see what he can provide. If he has nothing, it is just his word against Tubby's. Keep in mind though if Tubby did verbally offer him the job, it wouldn't be especially prudent for Tubby to lie about it considering depositions are generally taken under oath.

I'm sure the attorneys for Williams deposed Maturi, OSU's AD, any receptionists who may have taken calls back and forth, anyone within the respective athletic departments who might have overheard conversation or anything.

A he said-she said generally doesn't hold much water but in this situation I think there are probably enough people aware of what was going on to get at the crux of what happened.
 

Does anyone know what Williams is currently doing. He seems too talented to be unemployed. The man is a proven recruiter and people tend to forget that he is the guy who took the reins and ran the program after Dutcher resigned until Clem came on board.
 

A job for Jimmy ...

I would think John Calipari would appreciate his recruiting talents at Kentucky. :cheer:
 

Roy Christensen said:
Does anyone know what Williams is currently doing. He seems too talented to be unemployed. The man is a proven recruiter and people tend to forget that he is the guy who took the reins and ran the program after Dutcher resigned until Clem came on board.
Click to expand...

The last I heard, Williams and John Lucas were running private training sessions for NBA prospects and other guys who are at various levels of pro ball (minor leaguers looking to jump, foreign players back in the states during off-seasons, etc.).

Go Gophers!!
 

>>Next he will try to take Tubby to Judge Judy.<<

Poor Tubby. We make him watch home games from a stool and now this.
 

Sour1729 said:
The University could argue that and likely get out of it. But then it would all fall on Tubby, as he would be seen as "acting as an agent of the University without authority."
Click to expand...


Pay him his 50,000, take whatever PR hit comes from it, and release a nice joint statement from the AD and Coach Smith about learning from mistakes and that the Athletic Department is fully confident in Coach Smith's stewardship of the program and wishes to move on from this incident towards the bright future of Minnesota Basketball.

Seems that would be the best option than a long drawn out court battle of he said/he said that gets everybody's dirty laundary out in the open.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom