Suarez News (#ONTOPIC)

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!

When will Suarez leave?

  • Pre-contract, gone 1st day

  • Gone in July

  • Gone in August

  • Gone on transfer deadline day

Results are only viewable after voting.
saintanton said:
Of course they are legally binding, but virtually impossible to prove without independent corroboration.
As you say, the case would take an age and still probably be inconclusive.
Click to expand...

Yeah, just taking the opportunity to let Sisu throw a paddy at me <ok>
 
Gerrez said:
You do realise what he said about verbal agreements is true over here don't you? <whistle>


See my response to his point in #5256 though <ok>
Click to expand...


You numpty, they are legally binding if they exist in the first place<doh> There is 0 proof one existed at all hence my fit of laughter.

Your reply addiction gets the better of you sometimes<ok>
 
Sisu said:
You numpty, they are legally binding if they exist in the first place<doh> There is 0 proof one existed at all hence my fit of laughter.

Your reply addiction gets the better of you sometimes<ok>
Click to expand...

Isn't that kind of the point? Liverpool claim it didn't happen, Suarez claims it did, one word against the other <doh>
 
Sisu said:
You numpty, they are legally binding if they exist in the first place<doh> There is 0 proof one existed at all hence my fit of laughter.

Your reply addiction gets the better of you sometimes<ok>
Click to expand...

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.
,&#8221; Taylor said. &#8220;It is not a straightforward buyout clause and the contract is open to different interpretations. It doesn&#8217;t say there is an automatic trigger for a move.&#8221;
 
Diego said:
If this is true then they could have a case, i have read that verbal agreements are binding in law so it would be wrong of Liverpool to renege on one.
Click to expand...

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 <laugh>
 
Diego said:
Oooo, spill the beans, what verbal agreement has Evra had?
Click to expand...

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.
 
bow4fowler said:
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 <laugh>
Click to expand...

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 <ok>

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 <doh>
 
donga darko said:
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.
Click to expand...

Evidence for this verbal agreement please <confused>
 
Lets not be getting into the Suarez/Liverpool versus Evra/Man Utd racial bullshit lads <ok>
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back