Ricardo Mitchell vs Reynolds (1711) "it is the privilege of a trader in a free country, in all matters not contrary to law, to regulate his own mode of carrying it on according to his own discretion and choice. If the law has regulated or restrained his mode of doing this, the law must be obeyed. But no power short of the general law ought to restrain his free discretion."
That's the wrong case to quote. He's not being prevented from trading as he chooses, he's simply having to conform to the rules of the members club.
DMD, case law is the foundation for the laws that govern both UK and EU laws and regulations. This quote is as valid today as it was in 1711. A contract that restricts trade can be challenged on the basis of Mitchell vs Reynolds. Assem Allam already indicates that he believes he has the right to trade as he see's fit. There is no actual need for Assem Allam to demonstrate that there is a commercial need to change as the rule does not say that there has to be one. Absolute discretion that restricts a business in its trade can surely be challenged. The FA has admitted that the club has not demonstrated any commercial benefit so it implies that there has to be a commercial benefit for it to allow a club to change its playing name. However what commercial loss would there be to the FA if a club changed its name? It could be said that the decision to reject the name change prevents the club from trading as it see's fit.
You may be right, Mel - but surely, were AA to win his claim on that score, the FA could say that he (and City) had broken the rules of 'club membership'?
Im not giving Assem Allam advice though am I? If the rule was clear it there would not be a need to change it would there.
The club by being a member of the FA agreed to the "absolute discretion" clause. It therefore can't be challenged as a restriction of trade unless it is an unreasonable restriction. The Socimer test is the one that would determine whether or not the AD was being used reasonably by the FA.
There's some bollocks being posted on here, AA has no restriction of trade case agains the FA, nor has he suggested he has. It's a pointless discussion, AA's grievance isn't based on a restriction of trade, in fact, it's not really based on anything other than being a bit pissed off.
From the Independant. "After 63.5 per cent of the FA Council voted against the name change, Hull chairman Assem Allam said he will "appeal" against the decision. However, there is no right of appeal to the FA, leaving Allam with two options: either resubmit the application again next season or legally challenge the FA ruling. Allam's son, Ehab, who is vice-chairman, said last month: "If the fans say yes [to Hull Tigers] and the FA say no, then we will fight the FA legally." OK OLM, as long as you think it is all bollocks, no point in me posting on here is there!
I know what the club is contesting and it's not restriction of trade. As for whether there's any point in you posting, that's entirely up to you, plenty of other people regularly post bollocks, so I don't see it as a significant issue.
The club can appeal through CAS, not the high courts. The 1711 case is spurious and unrelated to this issue. We are talking about liars, and commercial bullies, who make themselves look very poor. I can argue my point with someone who wishes to get a reasonable grasp of the facts, but not when they are deliberately ignored, twisted and ridden roughshod over. Perhaps someone would like to explain to me why the owners choose to be dishonest in their public statements and in the way they are currently branding Hull City AFC?
