In a situation where it is not witnessed and one party denies the others version it is not as cut and dry as you would suggest. Anyone knows in all meetings between you and employer you need someone to accompany you into that meeting with your boss and the boss as well. I've been in that situation more than once, if you go into a meeting alone with your boss, anything verbal is subject to denial and or interpretation.
Or it would be like an employee saying to his boss "If this company doesn't meet it's quota, I'm leaving for a company that might". The employee already has a contract with the company, he is just informing the higher-ups that if they don't haul their ass up, he is leaving. That is not contractual.
Your describing an every day court of law One word against the other is difficult but it wouldn't just get dismissed. IT is a case of proving your or disproving the other persons point. Ie, it could drag on for weeks.
Clarke Carlisle has said a move to arsenal will be a redeeming feature for Suarez where he can face his demons everyday in training. Arsenal being the blackest team in the prem will be good for Suarez and his racist rehab.
Krome on the Aresnal board pointed out out that they could lose their qualifier. We are not that lucky it would be hilarious.
No, the difference is, that the conversations re: the clause happened before he agreed to sign a new contract. He then signed the contract with the expectation that it mirrored what was verbally agreed.
That would be hilarious, but have you seen the unseeded teams they woudl be up against? It's a stroll in the park, especially over 2 legs. The only possible tasty match-up could be if they are paired against PSV.
Well then he's a bigger moron than he thought. You don't sign a contract with "expectation", you read it, decide for YOURSELF whether it is mirrors what you agreed, and then sign it - an action that demonstrates you're agreement to what has been written. Jesus, why be an argumentative toad for the sake of it?
If it was an oral agreement aand he was signing a contract, why was this stipulation not in written form? The contract was right ****ing there!
sounds like modric to me... levy made him stay until the right deal came in. its all supposition though.... he's proved to be unreliable so if arsenal still want him they are in for it... biting, cheating, racism, next ban = 20 games or something, refusing to travel and the list goes on... yet we want our 50mil.
Suarez to sue for breach of contract....??? Legal action If you can't sort the problem out with your employer, you can decide to take legal action. Think carefully before taking any legal action against your employer. Ask yourself what you want to achieve and how much it will cost. Remember that you'll only get compensation (called 'damages') if you can prove real financial loss, if for example, your employer doesn't pay your wages. There's no compensation for distress or hurt feelings. You should also remember that taking legal action might prompt your employer to take out a counter claim against you if they feel they have one Suarez beware !!!
Firstly, I enjoy a spat, but I'm not being obtuse here, you're calling this wrong, as it's not as black & white as you appear to think it is & I've explained in detail why that's the case. In cases like this, the player would rarely read the contract, his agent & legal team should, but they've obviously missed the wording issue over the 'release' clause. So whilst, yes, ultimately he shouldn't have signed it if he didn't agree with the contents, the salient point is that he's saying it doesn't mirror the verbal agreement he had & it has used semantics to make the release clause worthless. In short - blatant deceit.
For the love of God, can a team outside of the premier league just put a bid in for this ****er. Think we should palm him off to Napoli on a loan if we cannot get shot of him to Madrid On no acountshould we sell him to Arsenal or another Premiership team
