If Folau's legal team was confident he had not breached his contract, they wouldn't have advised him to settle for considerably less and he would have proceeded with the case, followed through with the lawsuit, won and avoided the need to issue any sort of apology.
Your argument can easily be flipped on its head.
How do you know he settled "for considerably less"?
How much is "considerably less"?
For example, say, he sued for $10m and they offered $7m is that "considerably less"?
What if his legal fess were going to be $3m and so the $7m in cash, now, was a good deal?
Is it not common to sue for more than you really expect to get, knowing that it will get bargained down and the judge can rule however he likes?
All of the above is irrelevant, the fact is RU stated that they had the right to sack him for breach of contract and plainly they didn't otherwise they would have paid nothing.
Go Dogs