Rumours and Stuff

[85 Baby]

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.

You truly are a moron. “I know I’ll respond to a post then immediately forget everything that preceded that post.” Goldfish5150

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


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



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.

This all stems from me responding to a question saying yes and no then a sentence and half explaining that. If you want me to write a f**ken essay on common law theory on a rugby league forum, I’ll need my mate @TheRam to write down my dictations.

Communication is a two way street. I apologise for you not being able to understand the words.

 

[Gary Gutful]

I’ll need my mate @TheRam to write down my dictations.

Be very careful when you ask him to do that.

 

[Glenneel]

Who reckons it gets that far? Or given the nature of issue, for the good of NRL do we want the court to decide, whether good or bad for us?

Putting my bush lawyer hat on I'd say we have a strong case here. I'd say its not a restrain of trade because he had legal representation, the Club tried to talk him out of it and highlighted the period he was excluded from NRL. With these facts the court should find in our favour. Here's hoping.

 

[Glenneel]

Correct

Fox / Penisini right

Russell / Samrani left

Has Foxx ever played right? Even in his Tigers days he was always on left. Peninisi was garbage on the left the last time he played there.

 

[Glenneel]

This by 1000. The agreement could easily be overturned............or not. Completely depends on the consideration under the Contract, which to be honest, none of us knows. Genuinely could go either way, but if it goes AGAINST Parra, management needs rooting.

No, management hired Moses (the lawyer not Mitchell), or some other lawyer, to draft the release so he'd be in the firing line.

 

[Glenneel]

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.

If courts set a precedent then courts in other states will look at their case with similar circumstances as a guide. Its even the same in international law. Often legislation in one country is copied (not exactly obviously) by another country, That adopting country will look at case law in original country to use as a guide (obviously countries with a similar legal system).

 

[Timana]

Wow

It's a real possibility - BUT - if the release contract is invalid, then Lomax is legally not released and is still an Parramatta Eels player. Lomax doesnt want to play for us, we dont want him either, so we therefore retain the right to shop him to whomever we want, for a player in return - so from Zac's perspective he remains in the exact same position.

 

[Timana]

It's a real possibility - BUT - if the release contract is invalid, then Lomax is legally not released and is still an Parramatta Eels player. Lomax doesnt want to play for us, we dont want him either, so we therefore retain the right to shop him to whomever we want, for a player in return - so from Zac's perspective he remains in the exact same position.

But then the first contract is easier to break. If he breaks that and it becomes invalid, he pkays for the dragons again

 

[Eelementary]

Be very careful when you ask him to do that.

Been a while since I've read from him - I hope he's ok.

 

[Eelementary]

Has Foxx ever played right? Even in his Tigers days he was always on left. Peninisi was garbage on the left the last time he played there.

Here's hoping that with a different coaching staff, Penisini can finally reach his full potential, even if playing on the left.

 

[Chipmunk]

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

It's still consideration

 

[Chipmunk]

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).

We were talking about consideration.

 

[85 Baby]

If courts set a precedent then courts in other states will look at their case with similar circumstances as a guide.

Which is exactly what I said, that old mate had a cry about and then said the same f**ken thing

 

[85 Baby]

We were talking about consideration.

It’d be “consideration” (not really) for not paying him further under contract but I doubt you could argue it as consideration for further terms to a release. It isn’t like the contract was for a specified output that ceasing the contract would spare Lomax from further over cost to him

 

[Poupou Escobar]

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

It just looks like a disagreement between two blokes who know what they're talking about. Maybe you're the one who's wrong?

 

[85 Baby]

It just looks like a disagreement between two blokes who know what they're talking about. Maybe you're the one who's wrong?

It’s not even that. My original post was very basic but his responses have all said almost the same thing. Maybe we’re both wrong

 

[Soren Lorenson]

It just looks like a disagreement between two blokes who know what they're talking about. Maybe you're the one who's wrong?

Like a court case?

 

[Poupou Escobar]

Every lawyer is wrong. One is just less wrong on the day. You'll be okay @Tiger5150. Come back fresh tomorrow and try again.

 

[Eelementary]

Every lawyer is wrong. One is just less wrong on the day. You'll be okay @Tiger5150. Come back fresh tomorrow and try again.

There's a kernel of truth in that.

My mum was caught driving while intoxicated. She was 8 times over the legal limit, and had a minor accident with another motorist - nobody was injured.

The police were called, she was breath-tested, and charged. First offence, so she was out on bail.

Her time in court came, and her solicitor managed to argue her sentence down from a fine, and loss of licence for 24 months, to community service, a loss of licence for 12 months, and a good behaviour bond.

I was absolutely flabbergasted.

 

[Legal Eel]

My mate who has a law degree but does not work as a lawyer reckons we are no chance, Restraint of Trade and we will lose. He points out that just because we put something in a contract, it doesn't mean it's legal, and the courts will agree with Zach. I disagree but of course, my training extends no further than Yr 12 Legal Studies in 1995 which admittedly I was very good at.

I think we are in a strong position. That is all I will say.

I also don’t think it gets to a further hearing