A breach of contract has occurred in this situation from a legal standpoint because by law this occurs when a party (like Mr. Smith) fails to carry out, accurately and unerringly his responsibilities, however, in the current situation the negotiations for both sides were made ("Breach of contract," n.d.). For example, when X University replaced their head coach with Smith, consent was made by the official commissioners of the University and guaranteed him that a bare minimum sum of $10,000 would be accessible for basketball scholarships during Smith's first year as a coach for them. In conclusion, on January 7, Smith and X University agreed and signed a hand written agreement where Smith pledged to serve as coach for one year which would start on September 1. The University agreed to pay Smith an income of $14,500, too, and at that time there was no mention made in the deal to the subject of basketball scholarships.
Then on April 2, Smith found out that there would only be $1,000 available for the scholarships for the upcoming school year, therefore, he responded by wanting to cancel the contract on the grounds of fraud because of X University's first promise to at least give $10,000 as a minimum in scholarships. However, when Smith took the contract to court, the court denied him the right to cancel the agreements, and the choice was confirmed on when Smith appealed their decision. Since the decision was not settled for Smith in court he told X University that he still would not carry out his obligations in the contract and he was going to go to work for Y University. Yet before Smith was able to sign a contract with Y University, X University filed an deed looking for a) detailed information of Smith's contract with X University and b) an order to put a stop to Smith from being able to coach basketball at any other university or school.
There should not be any relief made to X University for the simple fact that even though they avoided and blatantly failed to mention the scholarships even though they gave their word that they would offer a minimum of $10,000 yet Smith learned later that there would only be $1,000 available for the entire school year. From the information gathered on both X University and Smith this is a situation for both parties are breaching their contract, and there would be no breach of contract with Smith if X University would have stuck to their word about the basketball scholarships like Smith agreed to work there for one year. Yet, when Smith found out about how the scholarship inquiry was probably only a way to persuade him to sign on to the contract that is when he decided to notify X University Staff and tell them he will not follow through with his of the deal either. This is call renunciation because renunciation takes place when a person/business declines to do what is expected of them in an agreement between them and another party regardless of whether it is spoken or indirect ("Breach of contract," n.d.). This means that even though X University did not mention anymore about the scholarships and how much would be granted at the time Smith signed on, he was aware and was told by the administration of the University that there would be scholarship funds but there was not.
Furthermore, I do not think that X University deserves any relief for the fact that they were guilty of a "Breach of Condition" which is a secondary infringement that happens when a party is looked at as failure to pay as a breach of circumstances, therefore, I feel Smith had a right to terminate his half of the agreement considering the University failed to meet their quota on the amount of scholarship money that was promised ("Breach of contract," n.d.). Since X University has taken Smith to court on the breach of contract, they won in the matter, therefore Smith is still supposed to follow through with his coaching for the year with no scholarship monies and additional support. In issuing an award of damages, the court has found that Smith was in the wrong, so they will either consider the remoteness which is the repercussions of the breach that Smith is lawfully accountable for or the…