You numpty, they are legally binding if they exist in the first place There is 0 proof one existed at all hence my fit of laughter. Your reply addiction gets the better of you sometimes
Isn't that kind of the point? Liverpool claim it didn't happen, Suarez claims it did, one word against the other
How does one side prove they do (or indeed the other side prove they don`t) exist? by the way, the whole contract thing is far from proved. ,” Taylor said. “It is not a straightforward buyout clause and the contract is open to different interpretations. It doesn’t say there is an automatic trigger for a move.”
Go on then, tell me where a 'verbal agreement' is binding, and not more explicably a misunderstanding, when both parties agree that one of the parties would not agree to a specific written clause for the 'agreement'? Can you not see how this will be cut to shreds in a court of law?
In contract law a verbal agreement is not binding. It has to be in writing. Unless there is not a formal contract at all which in that case there would/could be a claim in restitution. A verbal agreement is open to interpretation. Something like that - its been a while
Well he had one with FA for a start that if he backed down over what he originally claimed Suarez called him, and went with the only evidence the FA had (that which Suarez had already admitted to) then they'd not charge him for the only irrefutable evidence that they had - i.e. Evra on video telling Suarez in Spanish to go and **** his whore sister, in direct contravention to rule E3.
I'm not very knowledgeable with contract law, I'm better with employment law. Which one of these would this fall under? I'd imagine its the latter isn't it? In employment law, you don't need a contract to have a binding agreement so long as you have proof; therein lies the problem.
Oh fair one. I know construction law, not so much employment I've sort of contradicted myself in my original post too! In construction you can have a binding contract without it being in writing if a party has acted on an agreement to work and have been paid. If there was a disagreement and the parties didn't have a written document to interprete, then the claim in restitution would come into play. There is a case law but I must admit i'm a bit rusty. Not sure how this fits with Suarez though
My God! Shurrup John Henry, be silent Brendan, We're all wrong - DAVE WHELAN SPEAKS! http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/transfer-news/luis-suarez-transfer-dave-whelan-2149079
