The rules of contract interpretation in every state require courts to interpret contract language by favoring the interpretation of the non-drafting party. In this case, that’s Houston Nutt. Those rules of contract interpretation also require courts to reject interpretations that lead to absurd results or that would make the contract language virtually meaningless.
In connection with his severance agreement, Houston Nutt was represented by a very competent and experienced sports lawyer. At the time Houston signed the severance agreement in 2011, it was made clear to Houston that Ole Miss has a “top down” process for ensuring that all of its employees complied with the terms of the university’s contractual obligations and that this process begins with a formal notification to the members of the “control group” (basically, those people who report to the Chancellor) who are then responsible for communicating those obligations to their direct reports, who then pass the same message down through the chain of command.
Not once did anyone suggest to Houston that the non-disparagement language in section 8 only prohibited the then current members of the OM and OMAF “control group” from disparaging him. Nobody suggested that the language in section 8 meant that, with one microscopic exception for the few people at the very top of the university, Houston would be at the mercy of virtually anyone employed by Ole Miss who might want to drag his name through the mud by lying to every national and local sports writer who would take their call. Based on the legal principles that govern the interpretation of contracts, and the facts of this case. we don't believe a court would conclude that the parties to this contract ever intended such an absurd result.
In connection with his severance agreement, Houston Nutt was represented by a very competent and experienced sports lawyer. At the time Houston signed the severance agreement in 2011, it was made clear to Houston that Ole Miss has a “top down” process for ensuring that all of its employees complied with the terms of the university’s contractual obligations and that this process begins with a formal notification to the members of the “control group” (basically, those people who report to the Chancellor) who are then responsible for communicating those obligations to their direct reports, who then pass the same message down through the chain of command.
Not once did anyone suggest to Houston that the non-disparagement language in section 8 only prohibited the then current members of the OM and OMAF “control group” from disparaging him. Nobody suggested that the language in section 8 meant that, with one microscopic exception for the few people at the very top of the university, Houston would be at the mercy of virtually anyone employed by Ole Miss who might want to drag his name through the mud by lying to every national and local sports writer who would take their call. Based on the legal principles that govern the interpretation of contracts, and the facts of this case. we don't believe a court would conclude that the parties to this contract ever intended such an absurd result.
