|
Verbal Contracts; Not worth the paper they're written on
|
|
Topic Started: Aug 7 2013, 05:00 PM (818 Views)
|
|
dsch15
|
Aug 7 2013, 06:14 PM
Post #11
|
|
- Posts:
- 9,527
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #15
- Joined:
- Jul 5, 2013
|
- JustOneDennisBergkamp
- Aug 7 2013, 05:37 PM
- dsch15
- Aug 7 2013, 05:32 PM
- JustOneDennisBergkamp
- Aug 7 2013, 05:28 PM
Breaker Morant is on the JODB Top 20 All-time movies list. There is a scene where Captain Taylor, the liaison from Lord Kitchener's office to the Bushveldt Carbineers, is asked about orders from high command to execute all prisoners. His reply? "There was (pause) an understanding."
Whether or not Suarez has a written clause to enforce here, if indeed there was an "understanding" between he and Liverpool that is now being violated by the club, he would have no reason to remain loyal to them, and most of the public outside of Liverpool would not begrudge him a move to a CL team.
Given what we know about Suarez generally, I think any description by him of an "understanding" between him and Liverpool has to be taken with a grain of salt. Probably several.
In most cases, I'd caution folks not to let off-field behavior by players color their opinions of them on the field. Reverse here I guess. I'm keeping the two separate. In the current context my reference to what we know about him generally is that he has twice before forced a club to let him move. Nothing to do with his on field felonies and misdemeanors.
Edit - may have overstated the case with regard to his move from Ajax to 'pool. Not changing my mind, though!
Edited by dsch15, Aug 7 2013, 06:19 PM.
|
|
|
| |
|
JustOneDennisBergkamp
|
Aug 7 2013, 07:30 PM
Post #12
|
|
JODB
- Posts:
- 13,965
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #5
- Joined:
- Jul 3, 2013
|
- dsch15
- Aug 7 2013, 06:14 PM
- JustOneDennisBergkamp
- Aug 7 2013, 05:37 PM
- dsch15
- Aug 7 2013, 05:32 PM
- JustOneDennisBergkamp
- Aug 7 2013, 05:28 PM
Breaker Morant is on the JODB Top 20 All-time movies list. There is a scene where Captain Taylor, the liaison from Lord Kitchener's office to the Bushveldt Carbineers, is asked about orders from high command to execute all prisoners. His reply? "There was (pause) an understanding."
Whether or not Suarez has a written clause to enforce here, if indeed there was an "understanding" between he and Liverpool that is now being violated by the club, he would have no reason to remain loyal to them, and most of the public outside of Liverpool would not begrudge him a move to a CL team.
Given what we know about Suarez generally, I think any description by him of an "understanding" between him and Liverpool has to be taken with a grain of salt. Probably several.
In most cases, I'd caution folks not to let off-field behavior by players color their opinions of them on the field. Reverse here I guess.
I'm keeping the two separate. In the current context my reference to what we know about him generally is that he has twice before forced a club to let him move. Nothing to do with his on field felonies and misdemeanors. Edit - may have overstated the case with regard to his move from Ajax to 'pool. Not changing my mind, though! If indeed there was an "understanding" about CL footy, then anyone casting Suarez as disloyal would be "overstating (their) case."
I always suspected that you were a "Marxist." So am I.
|
|
|
| |
|
dsch15
|
Aug 7 2013, 10:14 PM
Post #13
|
|
- Posts:
- 9,527
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #15
- Joined:
- Jul 5, 2013
|
- JustOneDennisBergkamp
- Aug 7 2013, 07:30 PM
- dsch15
- Aug 7 2013, 06:14 PM
- JustOneDennisBergkamp
- Aug 7 2013, 05:37 PM
- dsch15
- Aug 7 2013, 05:32 PM
- JustOneDennisBergkamp
- Aug 7 2013, 05:28 PM
Breaker Morant is on the JODB Top 20 All-time movies list. There is a scene where Captain Taylor, the liaison from Lord Kitchener's office to the Bushveldt Carbineers, is asked about orders from high command to execute all prisoners. His reply? "There was (pause) an understanding."
Whether or not Suarez has a written clause to enforce here, if indeed there was an "understanding" between he and Liverpool that is now being violated by the club, he would have no reason to remain loyal to them, and most of the public outside of Liverpool would not begrudge him a move to a CL team.
Given what we know about Suarez generally, I think any description by him of an "understanding" between him and Liverpool has to be taken with a grain of salt. Probably several.
In most cases, I'd caution folks not to let off-field behavior by players color their opinions of them on the field. Reverse here I guess.
I'm keeping the two separate. In the current context my reference to what we know about him generally is that he has twice before forced a club to let him move. Nothing to do with his on field felonies and misdemeanors. Edit - may have overstated the case with regard to his move from Ajax to 'pool. Not changing my mind, though!
If indeed there was an "understanding" about CL footy, then anyone casting Suarez as disloyal would be "overstating (their) case." I always suspected that you were a "Marxist." So am I. All hail Marx & Lennon!
|
|
|
| |
|
billabog5
|
Aug 8 2013, 01:58 AM
Post #14
|
|
- Posts:
- 8,461
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #39
- Joined:
- Jul 31, 2013
|
- dsch15
- Aug 7 2013, 05:26 PM
- santry_gooner
- Aug 7 2013, 05:00 PM
Not sure what the point of this is given that the whole legal angle is undercut by the article's conclusion: "Do you think Luis Suárez will end up an Arsenal player?
"Yes. Although in some ways players have fewer rights than the majority of employees, they do possess a lot of power – and particularly after the Bosman ruling. If a player makes it clear he wants to leave, there is little point in clubs holding on to someone who may, potentially, begin performing badly. In such instances it's better to cash in."
Once a player has engaged in the antics we've seen recently from Suarez, the club in question is left with an unhappy choice - cash in or cut off your nose to spite your face. Arsenal should know this better than anybody after the recent sales of Nasri & RVP
As much as I despise Suarez, he does have every rite to be angry at Pool for reneging on the verbal agreement, but I guess Liverpool see it differently, they want some of the loyalty they showed him returned
Would Pool have been so loyal has Suarez been say , a Stuart Downing type signing ?
|
|
|
| |
|
anelka_henry
|
Aug 8 2013, 08:41 AM
Post #15
|
|
- Posts:
- 3,523
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #19
- Joined:
- Jul 8, 2013
|
- jays712
- Aug 7 2013, 05:30 PM
- JustOneDennisBergkamp
- Aug 7 2013, 05:28 PM
Breaker Morant is on the JODB Top 20 All-time movies list. There is a scene where Captain Taylor, the liaison from Lord Kitchener's office to the Bushveldt Carbineers, is asked about orders from high command to execute all prisoners. His reply? "There was (pause) an understanding."
Whether or not Suarez has a written clause to enforce here, if indeed there was an "understanding" between he and Liverpool that is now being violated by the club, he would have no reason to remain loyal to them, and most of the public outside of Liverpool would not begrudge him a move to a CL team.
He can use this "understanding" to slam Pool all he wants. It may still help him to force a move. What it won't do is stand up in front of a judge anywhere. If there were witnesses to the said 'understanding' it will stand! Finding such witnesses and getting them to testify might be the hard part... Verbal contracts are still very much enforceable just harder to prove than written ones.
|
|
|
| |
|
anelka_henry
|
Aug 8 2013, 08:44 AM
Post #16
|
|
- Posts:
- 3,523
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #19
- Joined:
- Jul 8, 2013
|
- billabog5
- Aug 8 2013, 01:58 AM
- dsch15
- Aug 7 2013, 05:26 PM
- santry_gooner
- Aug 7 2013, 05:00 PM
Not sure what the point of this is given that the whole legal angle is undercut by the article's conclusion: "Do you think Luis Suárez will end up an Arsenal player?
"Yes. Although in some ways players have fewer rights than the majority of employees, they do possess a lot of power – and particularly after the Bosman ruling. If a player makes it clear he wants to leave, there is little point in clubs holding on to someone who may, potentially, begin performing badly. In such instances it's better to cash in."
Once a player has engaged in the antics we've seen recently from Suarez, the club in question is left with an unhappy choice - cash in or cut off your nose to spite your face.
Arsenal should know this better than anybody after the recent sales of Nasri & RVP As much as I despise Suarez, he does have every rite to be angry at Pool for reneging on the verbal agreement, but I guess Liverpool see it differently, they want some of the loyalty they showed him returned Would Pool have been so loyal has Suarez been say , a Stuart Downing type signing ? That's the problem with making promises one don't intend to keep,...and I'm afraid we have seen this many a time if football circles. Get the player on the right premise, written of course, to begin with and all this be horse-sheet.
|
|
|
| |
|
rasjamaican
|
Aug 8 2013, 09:39 AM
Post #17
|
|
- Posts:
- 494
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #32
- Joined:
- Jul 15, 2013
|
- anelka_henry
- Aug 8 2013, 08:41 AM
- jays712
- Aug 7 2013, 05:30 PM
- JustOneDennisBergkamp
- Aug 7 2013, 05:28 PM
Breaker Morant is on the JODB Top 20 All-time movies list. There is a scene where Captain Taylor, the liaison from Lord Kitchener's office to the Bushveldt Carbineers, is asked about orders from high command to execute all prisoners. His reply? "There was (pause) an understanding."
Whether or not Suarez has a written clause to enforce here, if indeed there was an "understanding" between he and Liverpool that is now being violated by the club, he would have no reason to remain loyal to them, and most of the public outside of Liverpool would not begrudge him a move to a CL team.
He can use this "understanding" to slam Pool all he wants. It may still help him to force a move. What it won't do is stand up in front of a judge anywhere.
If there were witnesses to the said 'understanding' it will stand! Finding such witnesses and getting them to testify might be the hard part... Verbal contracts are still very much enforceable just harder to prove than written ones. That's true and from a purely legal perspective verbal contracts can be enforceable once the promisee can show that there are significant acts of part performance as well as detrimental reliance on a promise form the promisor.
However, a verbal contract will almost never be enforceable if it was made parallel with a written contract. If the parties went out of their way to make an agreement between themselves written then it is inferred that only what is contained in the written agreement was intended to bind the parties.
If Liverpool really did make this promise to Suarez and his agent/lawyer was aware of it then they should have ensured that it was incorporated as a clause in the contract. However I am pretty sure Liverpool would not have put such a clause in a player's contract.
|
|
|
| |
|
santry_gooner
|
Aug 8 2013, 11:33 AM
Post #18
|
|
- Posts:
- 3,772
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #13
- Joined:
- Jul 4, 2013
|
- rasjamaican
- Aug 8 2013, 09:39 AM
- anelka_henry
- Aug 8 2013, 08:41 AM
- jays712
- Aug 7 2013, 05:30 PM
- JustOneDennisBergkamp
- Aug 7 2013, 05:28 PM
Breaker Morant is on the JODB Top 20 All-time movies list. There is a scene where Captain Taylor, the liaison from Lord Kitchener's office to the Bushveldt Carbineers, is asked about orders from high command to execute all prisoners. His reply? "There was (pause) an understanding."
Whether or not Suarez has a written clause to enforce here, if indeed there was an "understanding" between he and Liverpool that is now being violated by the club, he would have no reason to remain loyal to them, and most of the public outside of Liverpool would not begrudge him a move to a CL team.
He can use this "understanding" to slam Pool all he wants. It may still help him to force a move. What it won't do is stand up in front of a judge anywhere.
If there were witnesses to the said 'understanding' it will stand! Finding such witnesses and getting them to testify might be the hard part... Verbal contracts are still very much enforceable just harder to prove than written ones.
That's true and from a purely legal perspective verbal contracts can be enforceable once the promisee can show that there are significant acts of part performance as well as detrimental reliance on a promise form the promisor. However, a verbal contract will almost never be enforceable if it was made parallel with a written contract. If the parties went out of their way to make an agreement between themselves written then it is inferred that only what is contained in the written agreement was intended to bind the parties. If Liverpool really did make this promise to Suarez and his agent/lawyer was aware of it then they should have ensured that it was incorporated as a clause in the contract. However I am pretty sure Liverpool would not have put such a clause in a player's contract. You can always, always, always tell the difference in a qualified opinion. I don't know how your profession requires it RAS but you have a sound grasp of the tenets of contract law, which while different from country to country, do have universal features.
Now, here's what I understand from my own legal experience, limited as it may be. A judge is required to look at matters where parties have given conditional undertakings, so one does have a rght to have a verbal agreement vindicated. However, as RAS points out Suarez identifies that the verbal undertaking was given at the same time as a written contract which makes no reference to the undertaking. A judge will look at this contemporaneous agreement as an over-riding consideration, and will generally conclude that both parties had the opportunity to make it an element of the contract. In other words, Suarez had the opportunity to have it as a consideration in a written contract with the club. The Judge will then [likely] conclude that the undertaking was not a serious enough requirement to include in the contract opportunity, and was therefore unimportant to Suarez. It won't matter whether Brendan Rogers got down on all fours and recited the undertaking in song - it is not a legal requirement.
|
|
|
| |
|
santry_gooner
|
Aug 8 2013, 11:35 AM
Post #19
|
|
- Posts:
- 3,772
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #13
- Joined:
- Jul 4, 2013
|
- dsch15
- Aug 7 2013, 10:14 PM
- JustOneDennisBergkamp
- Aug 7 2013, 07:30 PM
- dsch15
- Aug 7 2013, 06:14 PM
- JustOneDennisBergkamp
- Aug 7 2013, 05:37 PM
- dsch15
- Aug 7 2013, 05:32 PM
- JustOneDennisBergkamp
- Aug 7 2013, 05:28 PM
Breaker Morant is on the JODB Top 20 All-time movies list. There is a scene where Captain Taylor, the liaison from Lord Kitchener's office to the Bushveldt Carbineers, is asked about orders from high command to execute all prisoners. His reply? "There was (pause) an understanding."
Whether or not Suarez has a written clause to enforce here, if indeed there was an "understanding" between he and Liverpool that is now being violated by the club, he would have no reason to remain loyal to them, and most of the public outside of Liverpool would not begrudge him a move to a CL team.
Given what we know about Suarez generally, I think any description by him of an "understanding" between him and Liverpool has to be taken with a grain of salt. Probably several.
In most cases, I'd caution folks not to let off-field behavior by players color their opinions of them on the field. Reverse here I guess.
I'm keeping the two separate. In the current context my reference to what we know about him generally is that he has twice before forced a club to let him move. Nothing to do with his on field felonies and misdemeanors. Edit - may have overstated the case with regard to his move from Ajax to 'pool. Not changing my mind, though!
If indeed there was an "understanding" about CL footy, then anyone casting Suarez as disloyal would be "overstating (their) case." I always suspected that you were a "Marxist." So am I.
All hail Marx & Lennon! While I'm sure you chaps share many things that we may never discover, isn't it "Lenin" you were talking about?
|
|
|
| |
|
JustOneDennisBergkamp
|
Aug 8 2013, 07:42 PM
Post #20
|
|
JODB
- Posts:
- 13,965
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #5
- Joined:
- Jul 3, 2013
|
- santry_gooner
- Aug 8 2013, 11:35 AM
- dsch15
- Aug 7 2013, 10:14 PM
- JustOneDennisBergkamp
- Aug 7 2013, 07:30 PM
- dsch15
- Aug 7 2013, 06:14 PM
- JustOneDennisBergkamp
- Aug 7 2013, 05:37 PM
- dsch15
- Aug 7 2013, 05:32 PM
- JustOneDennisBergkamp
- Aug 7 2013, 05:28 PM
Breaker Morant is on the JODB Top 20 All-time movies list. There is a scene where Captain Taylor, the liaison from Lord Kitchener's office to the Bushveldt Carbineers, is asked about orders from high command to execute all prisoners. His reply? "There was (pause) an understanding."
Whether or not Suarez has a written clause to enforce here, if indeed there was an "understanding" between he and Liverpool that is now being violated by the club, he would have no reason to remain loyal to them, and most of the public outside of Liverpool would not begrudge him a move to a CL team.
Given what we know about Suarez generally, I think any description by him of an "understanding" between him and Liverpool has to be taken with a grain of salt. Probably several.
In most cases, I'd caution folks not to let off-field behavior by players color their opinions of them on the field. Reverse here I guess.
I'm keeping the two separate. In the current context my reference to what we know about him generally is that he has twice before forced a club to let him move. Nothing to do with his on field felonies and misdemeanors. Edit - may have overstated the case with regard to his move from Ajax to 'pool. Not changing my mind, though!
If indeed there was an "understanding" about CL footy, then anyone casting Suarez as disloyal would be "overstating (their) case." I always suspected that you were a "Marxist." So am I.
All hail Marx & Lennon!
While I'm sure you chaps share many things that we may never discover, isn't it "Lenin" you were talking about? "While I'm sure you chaps share many things that we may never discover..."
Not sure what you meant by that amigo, but two things that most folks around here will agree that we share in common is the often rare combination of intelligence and likability. You, not so much.
PS - I'm sure my pal from SoCal spelled "Lennon" just the way he meant to. Is your motor stuck on "PRICK?"
|
|
|
| |
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
|