See, everyones been telling you this, now DAVE speaks and you listen! Edit (just in case you thought i was serious).
Verbal contracts do hold up in court but to actually prove them is near impossile. In order to make one stand you need both parties to admit that there was a verbal contract in place, something Liverpool clearly won't do and unless Suarez's camp have proper proof, it will just be one groups word against the other.
I like when he takes the moral high ground saying he sacked Marlon King when he did something wrong... yeah because it had nothing to do with the fact he was in prison for 18 months so you didn't really fancy paying him while he was there
There was no verbal contract. There is a written contract and there may have been some verbal discussions around that but there is no verbal contract. The conversation that Suarez is supposed to have had with Rodgers happened AFTER both sides had put pen to paper on a new written contract. Therefore the substantive element of the contract is the written one. If, what Suarez claims he demanded in addition to the written contract was meant to be a major part of the written contract then he has already lost the right to ammend the clauses by his signature. As Rodger's claims that no such conversation took place and that no endorsements to the contract were made by Liverpool then no amendment to the written clauses took place.
This is all irrelevant in my eyes; he's a **** and he wants out. Lets **** him off on our terms...aka, not to Arsenal! (not that thats an option unless they change manager)
Legally it can't be irrelevant G. IF there was no way for Suarez to reconcile the situation then he could claim that we had breached the contract. That option to perform the contract has to be left open.
That fat corrupt **** has no right to even look at the moral high ground let alone attempt to climb on top of it. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/2313481/Whelan-too-shirty-taking-the-moral-high-ground.html
The Law & Verbal Agreements Verbal Agreements Legal Binding Many people are not aware that verbal agreements are in many cases as legally binding as written contracts. Verbal contracts can be upheld by a court if someone decides to breach the agreement, although without written terms and conditions it may be difficult to prove. Conditions of a Verbal Agreement Under law there are two basic terms that constitute a binding agreement. The verbal agreement will be binding if there was an agreement on the services to be performed and an agreement was reached on remuneration for this service. This agreement can be reached by a verbal exchange in person, via telephone or via an email. There are certain contracts and agreements that must be made in writing and these will include the sale of property, tenancy agreements, copyright transfer, and contracts for consumer credit. In some cases, verbal agreements will not be upheld in court, not because of the lack of a written agreement but because the terms of the verbal agreement were not clarified. Written Agreements For any agreement concerning an exchange of services it is a wise idea to have some form of contract or written statement. The contract or statement should include the terms and conditions of the agreement and is particularly helpful if a dispute between the parties occurs. Complete Verbal Agreements In order for a verbal agreement to be legally binding the agreement must have reached completeness. This means that all terms and conditions have been reached and agreed regarding services and terms of pay. Agreements will be incomplete when there are still further terms and conditions to be agreed. Agreements in principle will not usually be upheld in court and will not usually be considered complete verbal agreements. Verbal Agreements and Disputes If either party has decided to break a contract then the matter can be taken to the legal courts. In most cases the dispute may rest on the justification of the terms of the verbal agreement. There are a few ways that a judge will try and establish the terms of the agreement. These could include investigating what actually happened in practice. This can include the services that were actually undertaken and if any money whatsoever was paid for any services. Enforcing a Verbal Agreement Apart from taking the matter to court there are other ways to enforce a verbal agreement. If money is owed then the matter can be passed on to a collection agency to try to enforce the matter for you. The disgruntled party can also apply pressure themselves by sending letter, emails and making telephone calls to the person who is in breach of contract. Copies of all emails and letters should be kept in case the matter does reach the law courts. Payment before Service One way of avoiding this sort of dispute ever occurring may be to ask for some form of payment before supplying a service. Although the customer may not always agree to this it may be an option to consider. In some cases if a person is going to breach a contract and withhold payment then the odds are they may never have intended to pay for the service in the first place. In many cases though a customer may not like the idea of paying for a service until the job is completed for fear of non completion. Threatening court action for breach of a verbal contract may not actually help the matter at all if one party intended not to carry through on the agreement. However the law does consider complete verbal agreements as legally binding and the matter can be brought to the law courts for a judge to make the final decision.
the pres sis still full of ****e about suarez BUT rooney is yet again "ruled out" by utd of the shield.... but will play for england midweek... its so bloody patently obvious that this transfer has huge ramifications for utd season yet not a sausage about it in the press? What the F are the press at? The conspiracy theorists would tell me LFC is a target of the press and FA and salford rules the world
Are you that stupid mate I laughed at Diego because there was no proof, then you reply to tell me verbal agreements are binding which was nothing to do with why I was laughing at Diego, and now you reiterate the points I was laughing about in the first place about no proof or counter claims, to correct me? Total understanding fail as in you failed to understand why I was laughing at Diego, but no one asked you to defend his post did they
You negative rep'd me cos I liked Bow's post You talk of killing people and stabbing them in the eye and then you post that
finally.... i posted the baove before sunday supplement and they led with what a load of bollox the rooney stuff is. apparently (i didn't see it myself) he was playing golf with this shoulder injury just to show how bull it was. Its like bale... oh its a preseason there's no reason he should attend.... bollox!!!
