I can see what's happened here. HIAG and G4E were working out a bet, G4E said 'You're on' and HIAG has taken that to be the terms, but he then actually agreed to the final terms as laid out by G4E. If HIAG had a problem with those terms, he should have raised it at the time in the thread, but he didn't, so clearly he was happy with the bet as it stood. He only now wants to try and turn the clock back to an earlier time in the thread because he's lost the bet and is up **** creek.
You are not really defending Quentin on the subject of changing the terms of bets? ... if so, he'll need to abide by the one he readily accepted with me only to laterr claim he hadn't understood what was clearly laid out ... consistency please
Oh yeah, I'd forgotten about that one. Another bet that HIAG claimed he 'misread' the terms of after he'd already agreed to it.
Really? You think repeating what I've said will change the facts, somehow? You agreed to a bet and you're trying to avoid the consequences. That's it.
Is there a ****ing echo on this thread or something? Spurs fan says something. Filthy Goon copies. Historically accurate, I guess.
GTFO with that horse ****! I set the terms out precisely and clearly. G4E was in absolutely no doubt as to what those terms were. He clearly accepted those terms. Thank you for alerting me to this wager, as I had forgotten about it.
G4E amended those terms and you agreed to them. If you had a problem with that, you should have raised it at the time. Not when you realised you lost the bet
I don’t know how Hiag runs his business if he doesn’t read the terms of deals before he agrees to them - **** hot lawyer is he not
Fair point. OK... impartial view. I can see what HIAG is saying as it looks like the bet was agreed as he says. However and this is the problem - imagine a Will is made. Then the Will is updated and agreed. The updated Will is the one that stands. I've said that in the style of the referee Gary Lineker speaks to on BT Sport just to confirm the on-pitch ref decisions. As such it is fact.
It depends if there is a manifest error. Either @gooner4ever made such an error in the final bet which is the most charitable view since the terms were the opposite of those originally proposed. Or there was a deliberate attempt to hoodwink @Hoddle Is A God . Either way no court would enforce such a contract.
It’s the latter, I assure you. The clear and simple fact is there for everyone to see. I specified the terms of the bet and G4E accepted them. What came afterwards is irrelevant. I expect G4E to honour the wager.
But then G4E could argue the same about what he agreed to. At best, if what you say is correct and having considered the contradictory nature of both posts that were agreed, then the whole bet becomes null and void. Case dismissed, both parties to pay their own legal fees and perhaps even serve time on the ban hammer for wasting the court's time. HIAG to get an extra month for contempt just for the fck of it.
