In a nutshell, they were both suggesting terms for a bet. Kipper took 'you're on' to mean that was the terms finalised, but G4E then proposed the final terms, which HIAG then agreed. Now he realised he's lost the bet, Kipper is trying to rewind the clock to an earlier time to claim his terms were the ones agreed upon.
I've found @PISKIE a real lawyer. I've known Haslam for year, he maybe a horse punching dog shagging **** from Mordor. But he's fairly straight for an Orc
Seems to know his onions too. Kipper is going to have a fit when he finds out a real Lawyer has screwed him over.
I compared it to like drawing up a Will earlier. Basically the Will is made and agreed. Then the Will is updated so the current one stands. Is that comparable Haslam, I think so. But worst case scenario, both are separate bets agreed or neither valid as you've said.
Ah ok well in a nutshell, based on what i recall: A contract is made by 1 Offer 2 Acceptance 3 A meeting of the minds (consensus ad idem) 4 Consideration (something being offered/ given by both sides) 5 An intention for it to be legally binding Here G4E is arguing that HIAG made an offer and then he made a counter-offer which HIAG accepted. It's a valid argument to make (I'll ignore other interpretations of events if you want).
It's more like the former. Both agreed in principle to a bet. i.e. 'You're on' and terms of that bet were debated, G4E then amended the final terms and Kipper agreed to them. If he had a problem with those terms, he should have raised it at the time. Not once he's lost the bet
It's a similar concept yes. The key difference just being that a normal contract is bilateral (two parties agreeing on something) whereas a will is unilateral (one party putting forward something). I'm sure there's other things as well but it's late and the law isn't as fresh in my mind as it used to be!
I think the salient point here is that both parties negotiated and discussed the terms and agreed on the final draft.
I used to draft wills when i first started (there's no real money in drafting wills tbh so they tend to give all the basic ones to juniors; the probate is where the money is at so firms just try to bank as many wills as they can). Had one old fruitbat who was adamant she was not going to let her sister have a penny more than her from her mothers estate - they were sharing over £800k and ended up both saying to give £20-30k to charity as they were terrified the other party were going to end up getting their hands on it. I really did meet some very unreasonable people.
I think this has raised a real conundrum on the scale of an agreeable Brexit withdrawal agreement. It might be worth throwing both G4E and HIAG into the politics thread to fight it out and see who comes out alive? That's the winner of the bet!
Not even sure how long I've been posting almost solely on the Sunderland board. Must be 6-7 years? In all that time that's probably the nicest thing Comm has ever said about me. Twat!
I just don't think HIAG read the terms of the bet properly. He did the same thing with a bet with @FosseFilberto and welched that one too. Is stupidity really a defence ?
I bet there's a fck of a lot more in matrimonial! I once lost a house because the bitch took the sale all the way to exchange of contracts then pulled out just to fck off her ex-husband! I burnt her house down
@PISKIE if you need to know anything about the folks on here mate, just asl, i'll point you in the right direction. Now you have a proper lawyer (just feed him greggs.
Fair play mate. I think you've been very balanced with your appraisal of this bet. HIAG's going to have a fit when he finds out a real Lawyer has nobbled him, but there we go. He should have read the terms properly.
