None Of Corey Parkers Business....

[Slackboy72]

Gee I can't wait to see Inglis get some on-field hospitality from Brisbane next year.

 

[Slackboy72]

Contracts do not need to be in writing and signed. The only time they NEED to be in writing is Statute of Frauds - however the doctrine of part performance means contracts for the sale of land etc (MYLEGS) done on a handshake are enforcable when criteria other than being in writing and signed are met.



Handshakes means nothing.... as there are too many details... in a contract..to make it invalid...null void...

if i shake hands to buy your house... do you think any court will enforce that....

there maybe 10 plus pages in a contract....

Sounds to me like you know jack sh!t about contract law.

 

[ANTiLAG]

Handshakes means nothing....

wrong, a contract is an agreement that confers obligations - can be written or oral.

as there are too many details... in a contract..to make it invalid...null void...

What are you on about? You're just throwing words out in the hope they make sense or form a sentence. A contract can be void for lack of certainty - that is not enough details. How can details within a contract make it invalid? You mean like illegality? I didn't think we were talking about an underlying illegal transaction.... "Null void"? - is that like a nullity?

I'll school you; all you need for a contract is - offer, acceptance, generally consideration moving from the promisee, certainty, intent to create legal relations, and no vitiating factors negating consent or "mistakes"/"misreps". The latter make a contract VOIDABLE as opposed void. A contract does NOT need to be in writing unless subject to the Statute of Frauds - and even that is limited by estoppels and Doctrine of Part Performance.

Here's a concept that will blow your mind - "Implied Terms".

if i shake hands to buy your house... do you think any court will enforce that....

there maybe 10 plus pages in a contract....

Yes - many cases have been enforced on a handshake. Its called the DOCTRINE OF PART PERFORMANCE in some cases, in others PROMISSARY ESTOPPEL was applied where there was detrimental reliance but no consideration. Look them up. How many pages there are to a contract is irrelevant.

Do not profess to being legally savvy when you're clearly not. You clearly have no f idea what you're on about.

 

[ANTiLAG]

Sounds to me like you know jack sh!t about contract law.

Please fix up that quote

 

[Razor]

I think he has every right to an opnion

contract law says Brisbane could force inglis to play for them if they wanted
him to

Inglis never signed a contract

 

[Razor]

Yes - many cases have been enforced on a handshake. Its called the DOCTRINE OF PART PERFORMANCE in some cases, in others PROMISSARY ESTOPPEL was applied where there was detrimental reliance but no consideration. Look them up. How many pages there are to a contract is irrelevant.

Do not profess to being legally savvy when you're clearly not. You clearly have no f idea what you're on about.

Actually a verbal contract is valid for everything except for real estate - real estate there must by law be a written contract; for anything else no written contract is required. So the post you replied to "if i shake hands to buy your house" the answer would be a definite no. So I suggest read your last paragraph and apply it to yourself.

However it's debatable if Inglis ever had a verbal contract with the Broncos. No one but Inglis and the Broncos know the terms of his verbal contract - he decided not to go to the Broncos when neither the Broncos nor Storm would pay his $113,000 legal bill.

 

[Razor]

Double post

 

[ANTiLAG]

Actually a verbal contract is valid for everything except for real estate - real estate there must by law be a written contract; for anything else no written contract is required. So the post you replied to "if i shake hands to buy your house" the answer would be a definite no. So I suggest read your last paragraph and apply it to yourself.

Thanks for your input Razor. I did honours in contract with my LLB. I suggest you look up the equity of the Doctrine of Part Performance. It is a way to circumvent the STATUTE OF FRAUDS, therefore, real estate contracts do not need to be solely in writing - if you show an act in reliance of an oral contract which suggests evidence that such an agreement existed. If some lawyer told you what you "profess" to know - I suggest you get a better lawyer in future. Sounds like an argument from the suburban lawyer in "The Castle".

Look at Regent v Millet (1976) 133 CLR 679 (HCA) which confirms the Statute of Frauds must not be permitted to create fraud.

There are no "definites" in equity's fettering of contract law - tis all discretionary. Law is an art - not a science.

 

[hellteam]

Well Lockyer has played with Inglis a lot, and will next year (Origin etc), and Parker doesn't play with Inglis, so I guess it is a bit 'safer' for him to truly have his say on the matter.

 

[Big Pete]

Pretty much hellteam, Parker doesn't have a relationship with Inglis and I think he knows in the back of his mind, he never will.

 

[Razor]

Thanks for your input Razor. I did honours in contract with my LLB. .

Well you're wrong. A verbal contract is not legally binding for real estate. It is for everything else.

 

[ANTiLAG]

Well you're wrong. A verbal contract is not legally binding for real estate. It is for everything else.

I'm just going by what the High Court of Australia has ruled. That's not "wrong". In fact, until they rule otherwise, and given that the Doctrine of Part Performance has been around for centuries - this is unlikely - it is you who is wrong. Equity is an amazing jurisdiction which influences the way statutes are interpreted. I am a massive fan of equity.

Read the case Regent v Millet (1976) 133 CLR 679 (HCA) buddy.

What is your legal source that ignores equity?

Your real estate agent? The back of a cereal box?

 

[badav]

The Broncos are privately furious that Inglis reneged on the deal, with senior Broncos player Parker saying on Brisbane radio yesterday: "You don't really want those sorts of people involved in your club if they don't want to be there anyway.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sp...self-greg-inglis/story-e6frexnr-1225949631300


I dont think its any of Corey parker business what Greg Inglis does..

1- he doesnt know the full situation

2- its none of his business what another player does in negotiating his salary..

4 - How about Justin Hodges

None of his business?

The full situation is that Inglis is is about as intelligent as a 3 year old kid.

He doesn't know what he wants and hes easily influenced

Are you Greg Inglis? Why don't you tell us the full situation.

I think him appearing on the news and saying "im my own man i gotta do whats best for myself" tells you more than enough that hes not capable of thinking for himself. He's just another Anthony Mundine mouthpiece.

 

[Broncos93]

How is it not his business? He's the vice captain of a club that has just been screwed out of a deal with a $600k player. Obviously angry fans of the Broncos wanna know the take on the situation from someone in their own camp.

If it weren't his business the media wouldn't have asked him for his opinion.

 

[Dr.J]

Hodges was coming off a contract, not about to start one. In addition to this Hodges sought an early release to go to the Broncos mid season, but Brisbane didn't want that and waited until 2005 when Hodges contract with the Roosters expired. Mid year negotiations with Brisbane were also approved by the Roosters.

Fail.

Hodges had a multi-year deal with the Roosters signed shortly before he moved back to Brisbane.

 

[Dr.J]

No inside mail but putting two and two together:

1. Inglis is all about money - $300K or whatever he is going to get paid by anyone inside the cap is nowhere near what he thinks his market value is (and he is probably right).
2. Broncos probably had a deal ready for him that was $300K inside the cap and another $400K outside it. Who knows how the $400K was made up - payments to Sally Robinson, brown paper bag, Thoroughbreds etc. whatever???
3. Some major proportion of the deal in 2. has recently fallen through or come to Ian Schubert's notice and it is now off the table, hence the real value of the Broncos deal (which was not signed because of the non-cap bit being outside the contract) has just been downgraded.
4. Inglis has probably just moved to the next best offer (which is currently the highest bid) of $300K inside the cap from Souths and $350K outside it from ?Twiggy, ?Rusty, ?Sam Burgess Virgin Islands fund whatever.
5. All the rubbish about compassionate leave to follow the girlfriend or Souths are the indigenous people's club is all smother. It comes down to who can come up with the most cash in total between cap payments and whatever can be shifted in his direction through a non-cap loophole.
6. This is all speculation but you all know it makes sense.

 

[lockyrulz]

So it isn't Parkers buisness, but every issue that ever happens in league is apparently the business of everyone of us on here...

As it is, Parker is spot on. Regardless of what people think aboiut how Inglis made his decision, he clearly didn't want to be a Bronco. Even before all this I had my doubts, he made comments about how he hoped to play for Melbourne again etc etc. For whatever reason his heart wasn't here, and no club wants those sort of players.

 

[Eels Dude]

As a senior player at the Broncos, who would probably be consulted by his coach about other players, I think he has every right to say what he wants to on the matter. He's not particularly outspoken and he's probably under-rated in comparison to other good blokes in the game. He said his piece, which was a fair and quite correct.

 

[Kiki]

why the bagging off on Corey Parker? what the?

 

[Southern Rooster]

Be interesting to see exactly what happens with Inglis come origin time. He has lied to his Melbourne team mates about wanting to go home on compassionate grounds To QLD with his missus and has pissed the Broncs players off. Wonder whether they will say "Nope we do not want him here this year". Could be interesting.