Rumours and Stuff

[Poupou Escobar]

He understand it just fine. He's been living unmarried to the mother of his kids for nearly ten years ffs

 

[T.S Quint]

I feel like if lomax wins it will open up Pandora’s box. What’s then stopping Cleary from saying I want to go play R360 and then defecting to the Roosters. I doubt the contract would have said anything about him going to play R360 just that he is being released to go look at other opportunities outside the NRL and he can’t play NRL for another club unless Parra agrees.

It’s not Parras fault R360 fell through and Parra would have been of the belief he wasn’t coming back. Zac took a big gamble and it didn’t work out Now he has to just deal with it

I would think if he wins then clubs would become much less open to releasing players at all.

 

[Tiger5150]

I would think if he wins then clubs would become much less open to releasing players at all.

or knowing how to do it properly.

 

[Eelementary]

What was his consideration to sign that Contract?

You'd have to ask horseface.

 

[TheCrowe]

Not sure you understand Common Law.

* Contract Law

 

[85 Baby]

or the court rules that the release agreement in not legal/binding.

Well then that would mean the case progressed to court? My point was about the case not progressing any further.

I dont know why the Eels arent making a bigger deal that he is welcome back.

Agreed. I’d be making a bigger deal how disappointed we were he didn’t come to us first to get spot back

 

[85 Baby]

No way there is a decision 13th.

Probably not. Definitely won’t be 12th though

 

[85 Baby]

Not sure you understand Common Law.

The original question was does it set a precedent for every non-compete clause in country. Which the answer is definitely no, which you should be able to identify pretty easily why.

But yes it sets a precedent for aspects of the case that would be raised in future non-compete clause cases, however that precedent is only binding to aspects that are similar to this case. Material differences could lead to different decisions.

So the answer is yes and no. Would you care to refute any of that?

 

[Chipmunk]

What was his consideration to sign that Contract?

He was no longer obliged to complete the terms of his contract with Parramatta.

 

[85 Baby]

He understand it just fine. He's been living unmarried to the mother of his kids for nearly ten years ffs

I thought I asked you to stop watching me through my window.

Or at least to wear goddamn pants when you do.

 

[85 Baby]

He was no longer obliged to complete the terms of his contract with Parramatta.

Not a solid argument unfortunately because likewise we were no longer obliged to pay him the terms of the contract. It’d be difficult to impossible to also claim when under contract, he was paid in excess of contract performance (regardless of how anyone thinks he performed on field).

 

[Tiger5150]

* Contract Law

nope.

 

[Tiger5150]

Well then that would mean the case progressed to court? My point was about the case not progressing any further.

Not sure how to break this to you.....

 

[Tiger5150]

The original question was does it set a precedent for every non-compete clause in country. Which the answer is definitely no, which you should be able to identify pretty easily why.

But yes it sets a precedent for aspects of the case that would be raised in future non-compete clause cases, however that precedent is only binding to aspects that are similar to this case. Material differences could lead to different decisions.

So the answer is yes and no. Would you care to refute any of that?

you clearly dont understand Common Law. Every ruling potentially sets a precedent for every case, but not necessarily every outcome. or ruling.

There is zero cases that dont "set a precedent".

 

[Tiger5150]

He was no longer obliged to complete the terms of his contract with Parramatta.

Thats not a new Contract , its a frustration of the old Contract.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

I thought I asked you to stop watching me through my window.

Or at least to wear goddamn pants when you do.

Tbf it just looks so much like @Noise's house. Even the lawn Torana is the same colour.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

* Contract Law

*LA

 

[85 Baby]

Not sure how to break this to you.....

I’m not sure how to break it to you that your comprehension is dog shit.
The post I responded to was about the possibility of the matter basically being settled out of court after today. So please break it to me how the COURT deciding something would then fall under that?

you clearly dont understand Common Law. Every ruling potentially sets a precedent for every case, but not necessarily every outcome. or ruling.

There is zero cases that dont "set a precedent".

Firstly you missed the fact it’s a NSW case so please tell me how that sets a binding precedent to Queensland or Victoria? Because the OP said in the country and now you’ve doubled down with every case.

Secondly you’ve said what I said. Yes = every case has a ruling that binds it to law, and no = that precedent does not necessarily affect every similar case in the same way. Just because the court rules in favour/against Lomax, doesn’t mean that Joe Executive will cop the same ruling. It is literally why we have court hearings to determine whether and how much a precedent impacts a particular case.

 

[85 Baby]

Tbf it just looks so much like @Noise's house. Even the lawn Torana is the same colour.

@hindy111 doesn’t appreciate your humour.

I’m currently watching him through his window type a cynical response.

I am wearing pants because it’s cold, and I also don’t want his lizard or whatever to bite me.

 

[Tiger5150]

I’m not sure how to break it to you that your comprehension is dog shit.
The post I responded to was about the possibility of the matter basically being settled out of court after today. So please break it to me how the COURT deciding something would then fall under that?

The post you were responding to was MY POST explaining what would happen in court. It has reached court. It will be decided by the courts.

Firstly you missed the fact it’s a NSW case so please tell me how that sets a binding precedent to Queensland or Victoria? Because the OP said in the country and now you’ve doubled down with every case.

The NRL operates nationally and is therefore governed by Federal Common Law. Contract law is federal. Its not rocket surgery.

Secondly you’ve said what I said. Yes = every case has a ruling that binds it to law, and no = that precedent does not necessarily affect every similar case in the same way.

Its called Stare decisis and it is literally the basis of Australian Law. Please stop. You are embarrassing yourself badly

Just because the court rules in favour/against Lomax, doesn’t mean that Joe Executive will cop the same ruling. It is literally why we have court hearings to determine whether and how much a precedent impacts a particular case.

you are literally talking out of your arse.

We literally have court hearings to analysis stare decisis to determine BINDING precedents from same level or higher courts or persuasive obiter dicta decisions from lower courts.

Stop talking out of your arse. you dont know what you are talking about and look even more stupid than usual.