another runner wrote:
No this deal isn't standard. Cancelling the Trials with no notice is not standard.
Except that's reportedly not what happened:
When I said, cancel "with no notice" I should have phrased better because what I really meant was "cancel with no notice in the immediate time period (2018)" because it is clear if you read the memo USATF did give notice in October that they needed more things from Mt. Sac or they'd reopen the Trials bad. Adam Schmenk wrote in October " We look forward to receiving your plans by November 17. Should you be unable to provide the above assurance by November 17, we will reopen the bid process to secure a host city who can provide the commitments necessary to host a successful Olympic Trials."
Once that happened, November 17th passed.
Then USATF sent a contract for Mt. Sac to host the Trials on January 16th that Mt. Sac signed. This is after Mt. Sac says they had a phone call and follow up letter with USATF.
So in my book if in October you express concerns and give a cancellation date of November 17th, but then talk with the other party and send them a contract that they sign and then never after discuss you're about to cancel, that to me is what I mean with cancelling "with no notice" although it could be phrased better. I should have said "proper notice".
Also for legal minds, Mt. Sac made it sound like USATF could cancel for any reason. Is that the case? I didn't see that in the contract. Turns out USATF never signed the contract which is comical on both sides (USATF for not signing and/or conveying that to Mt. Sac and Mt. Sac for not realizing it hasn't been signed).
So could USATF cancel for any reason since it wasn't signed or do they have to cite some breach?