Storm will be forced to lose two more...

[pnub]

It amuses me to no end all the hatred for Steve Turner on this thread and else where for what happened with the titans. All the laughing about it being karma and Turner deserving whatever happens to him.
Where is the Hate for Nathan Smith or Luke Lewis who both last year agreed to deals with Canberra and South’s respectively but both reneged to sign with the Panthers again. How is that any different to Steve Turner agreeing via email only then to decide to stay with the storm? Aside from the fact that he decided to sign with the Storm that is.
And what about Jackson Nicolau who a few years back agreed to a 2 year extension with the storm before signing with the Cowboys because they offered him way more money that the storm could afford? The same storm who then wished him well on his future endeavours.
So where is the hate for those players?
Also seeing the majority of people here seem to be of the opinion that he's either crap or just an average winger wouldn't you be happy he's at the storm if he's such a bad player?

 

[The_Savage_1]

I stopped reading after that.

you have obviously never been involved in real litigation then. i do it every day.

 

[Iafeta]

the turner case was not a lay down misere. turner definitely had outs. plus sometimes it depends on what side of the bed the judge gets out of!

obviously there was some form of a verbal agreement, but was it an agreement in principle only and subject to further negotiation of the finer points? that being the case, did he intend to be bound by the agreement? as per the above, intent is an essential element of a contract.

also, as i understand an nrl contract must be in writing before it can be registered. although the law most likely does not require written employment contracts (as previously stated only special contracts such as purchase of property do), the laws of the nrl do to my knowledge.

lastly, if you argue that the storm knew they had no case because they gave up two players, one could argue that it was actually the titans that felt they didnt have a case by accepting two lesser players in exchange for turner. the storm got what they wanted, turner, the titans didnt. if the titans had a slam dunk as you say, why didn't they pursue the storm to the full extent?

in reality, both parties compromised because no matter how strong your case is there is always a risk in litigation that you lose and often even if you win, you lose, because the cost of winning is higher than what you win (even though the loser usually has to pay some of your costs).

Wrong. The Titans merely had to find any positive adjudicated case where a similar instance had occurred and the contract was upheld. It would be not be too hard whatsoever. Marsh and Price for the Warriors straight off the bat for a start. No contract signed but a knowledge to all reasonable people that the 6 points of a legally binding agreement had been executed. It doesn't matter what side of bed the judge gets up on, it's a matter of common law (the 6 points laid out above), enacted through various legislation including the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) but more importantly through case precedence. Judge's will not overturn case precedence based on what side of bed they get up on. If they interpret, and they would because it's a straight forward situation, through case precedence of a way an enacted law was interpreted and ruled upon, then they will follow the same due course. They will not overturn it.

Completely wrong also on the Titans acceptance of the players. The Storm made a counter offer to null and void Turner's agreement with the Titans. The Titans accepted the offer to stop it dragging on. One club hauling another through the courts when a club is trying to start itself up and get a reputation is hardly what it needs.

Look, this instance was a few years ago now. I don't even know why it's being discussed. But for the love of god, if you're going to discuss it can you please, please, please refer yourself to a book on law. If you go to most Co-Op Bookshops they will have a number of books to help you on this subject. The most user friendly one is Australian Business Law by Paul Latimer. It will show for once and for all this subject is very much an open and shut case that needs little to no analysation.

 

[_Johnsy]

you have obviously never been involved in real litigation then. i do it every day.

Ok then Lionel Hutz, I would have thought that the Magistrate/Judge would have based his/her decision on law, and precedent, and this only. Not what mood she/he was in. But then again, I have never been involved in "real litigation".

To suggest that the side of the bed impacts on a decision that effects someones life does nothing but cast doubt on your involvement in "real litigation" as you put it.

For those of us who have no experience in real litigation, the elements of a contract are;
1. Offer & acceptance, "Agreement"
2. Consderation
3. Intention to create legal relations
4. Capacity/comment.

 

[MsStorm]

It amuses me to no end all the hatred for Steve Turner on this thread and else where for what happened with the titans. All the laughing about it being karma and Turner deserving whatever happens to him.
Where is the Hate for Nathan Smith or Luke Lewis who both last year agreed to deals with Canberra and South’s respectively but both reneged to sign with the Panthers again. How is that any different to Steve Turner agreeing via email only then to decide to stay with the storm? Aside from the fact that he decided to sign with the Storm that is.
And what about Jackson Nicolau who a few years back agreed to a 2 year extension with the storm before signing with the Cowboys because they offered him way more money that the storm could afford? The same storm who then wished him well on his future endeavours.
So where is the hate for those players?
Also seeing the majority of people here seem to be of the opinion that he's either crap or just an average winger wouldn't you be happy he's at the storm if he's such a bad player?

Good point, and it stands out clearly in my mind (wish I could recall the players names) that at exactly the same time turner changed his mind so did two other players...yet no one talks about the above and the two who I unfortunately can't recall.

 

[_Johnsy]

This is not a turner hate thread, as you should be able to tell it is discussing basis of contract law.

The other two had legitimate family reasons, from what I can remember. Also in addition the clubs who were to receive the incoming players happily agreed to a release in the first instance. Turner did not raise any legitimate family reasons, he later used towards theend of this issue. That was proven to be bogus. I have no sympathy for him at all.

 

[The Tank]

Didn't he want to stay with his Vic GF or something?

 

[Frank_Grimes]

Steve Turner's case is different from the others mentioned because he agreed to terms, his manager emailed the agreement to join the Titans, Turner even went on radio and announced his decision to join the Titans, and then reneged this written and verbal deal with the full support of the Storm. Luke Lewis never provided a written agreement to terms with Souths, therefore - there was never a contract.

I can't believe after all the debate that went on here when it all went down, that some people can still have such a mis-informed opinion about the situation. It's pretty damn clear cut. The email confirming that Turner would join the Titans constituted a contract.

 

[Frank_Grimes]

the turner case was not a lay down misere. turner definitely had outs. plus sometimes it depends on what side of the bed the judge gets out of!

obviously there was some form of a verbal agreement, but was it an agreement in principle only and subject to further negotiation of the finer points? that being the case, did he intend to be bound by the agreement? as per the above, intent is an essential element of a contract.

also, as i understand an nrl contract must be in writing before it can be registered. although the law most likely does not require written employment contracts (as previously stated only special contracts such as purchase of property do), the laws of the nrl do to my knowledge.

lastly, if you argue that the storm knew they had no case because they gave up two players, one could argue that it was actually the titans that felt they didnt have a case by accepting two lesser players in exchange for turner. the storm got what they wanted, turner, the titans didnt. if the titans had a slam dunk as you say, why didn't they pursue the storm to the full extent?

in reality, both parties compromised because no matter how strong your case is there is always a risk in litigation that you lose and often even if you win, you lose, because the cost of winning is higher than what you win (even though the loser usually has to pay some of your costs).

There was an email from Turner's manager confirming that they had agreed to terms and that Turner would join the Titans. More than a verbal agreement. A written agreement. This evidence alone would have ensured a very short hearing. That and the fact that the NRL refused to register the Storm contract for Turner and were siding with the Titans.

 

[Iafeta]

There was an email from Turner's manager confirming that they had agreed to terms and that Turner would join the Titans. More than a verbal agreement. A written agreement. This evidence alone would have ensured a very short hearing. That and the fact that the NRL refused to register the Storm contract for Turner and were siding with the Titans.

Good call firstly Johnsy, Lionel Hutz indeed. I think that bloke gives me every reason to be grateful for my own choice of legal counsel. They at least seem to have an idea of the law that they claim to be practising.

Exactly Frank, this was published throughout the relevant print media too. If was so untrue, why would Turner or his agent not look at bringing a suit forward for slander? Because the comments weren't slanderous, they were correct.

 

[The_Savage_1]

law in theory and law in practice are two different things. you learn this when you get screwed by the courts time after time. we've had decisions where signed deadlines are clearly missed to be told close enough is good enough, the legislated rules of the court have been broken but the court doesn't apply the stipulated penalty, and several times precedents ignored.

one time the court threw our whole case out because our evidence was supposedly late even though we sent it two days before the deadline. the worst part was the defendant hadn't even lodged their evidence at all, and we had to pay their costs!!!

it's all good to say find a precedent and it's all over, but there's always precedents to suit both sides so when both sides have precedents it often comes down to what side of the bed the judge gets out of, so to speak. it's certainly worse in the lower courts, but it still happens at higher levels.

as to the email from the manager, this would definitely be damaging as it demonstrates intent. the case would still be decided on subjective issues, so there is no certainty. as i said before, we've had cases where objectively it's been flawless, and you still lose.

also, even if the court did rule it a contract, there is still the possibility he got out of it because he hadn't signed the NRL contract, which is required by NRL rules i recall. the titans could have then sought an order compelling turner to sign perhaps.

i'm not disagreeing with what you are all saying generally speaking. i'm only disagreeing that it's certain, or even almost certain, the titans would have won. they probably would have but sh*t happens sometimes.

for those doubting my experience i refer you to a couple of cases i have been involved in...

http://www.courts.qld.gov.au/esearc...leNumber=8452/06&Court=Supreme&Location=BRISBhttp://www.courts.qld.gov.au/esearc...eNumber=11011/06&Court=Supreme&Location=BRISB

http://www.courts.qld.gov.au/esearc...leNumber=2067/07&Court=Supreme&Location=BRISB

you will see my name in the document listings.

 

[pnub]

Steve Turner's case is different from the others mentioned because he agreed to terms, his manager emailed the agreement to join the Titans, Turner even went on radio and announced his decision to join the Titans, and then reneged this written and verbal deal with the full support of the Storm. Luke Lewis never provided a written agreement to terms with Souths, therefore - there was never a contract.

I can't believe after all the debate that went on here when it all went down, that some people can still have such a mis-informed opinion about the situation. It's pretty damn clear cut. The email confirming that Turner would join the Titans constituted a contract.

How is it any different? Both Luke Lewis and Nathan Smith came out in public to comment about signing for their "new clubs" and how happy they were ect. So if Steve Turner is liable because he announced it to the media so are those two. That would also imply at the very least that a verbal agreement reached between the clubs and the players seeing they supported the clubs official announcements.

Now David Gallop in his comments on the situation actually gives the impression that both Luke Lewis and Nathan Smith signed contracts with South’s and Canberra respectively but due to the new rules about contracts not being ratified by the NRL until after round 13 both had the ability to renege on even a signed contract.
http://blogs.abc.net.au/grandstand/2008/06/interview-david.html

David Gallop also goes on to comment that the rule needed to be explained to their managers which makes it seem like they did sign contracts as their managers needed an explanation as to why they would then be allowed to resign with the Panthers without fear of litigation. The fact there was a contract in place is supported by Canberra's chairman John McIntyre comments that Nathan Smith had a contract with the Raiders. It’s unclear if the contract was signed contract, a verbal contract or just an agreement via email like Steve Turner. Which seems at the very least likely as Canberra sent a few emails to Nathan Smith and his manager threatening to sue if he signed with the Panthers so it’s a reasonable conclusion that at least one of the corresponding emails alluded to an agreement by Nathan Smith with the raiders.

That’s amusing,” said McIntyre when told Smith had signed with Penrith.
“I think that comes to a case of breach of contract.
“He has got a contract with Canberra and see you in court.”

http://www.theroar.com.au/2008/06/07/canberra-continue-legal-threat-but-smith-signs-with-panthers/

 

[_Johnsy]

Luke Lewis and Nathan Smith were released from their obligations by there "new" clubs after consultation between the player and the club. The new clubs the happily released both players big, big difference. However the rules surrounding contracts within the NRL spectrum need to be changed, in an attempt to ensure contracts are honoured.

And savage, wow you have your name on court documents.
This makes do difference to your original claim that was completely wrong. It may appear to you that this was the reason for your loss in court, however the requirements for the filing of court documents/evidence that is to be presented before the presiding judge/magistrate has not changed. Your inability to fulfill this requirement refelcts on your ability to do your job in the capacity required. Blaming the "loss" of documents/evidence, and the side of the bed the judge/magistrate got out of, for a loss is bordering on dillsuional. If it was that important get off your ass, get in your car. Insert the key in the ignition and take them there yourself. Or just make sure they are there when needed. Not a difficult concept for an so called, educated person.

 

[Iafeta]

How is it any different? Both Luke Lewis and Nathan Smith came out in public to comment about signing for their "new clubs" and how happy they were ect. So if Steve Turner is liable because he announced it to the media so are those two. That would also imply at the very least that a verbal agreement reached between the clubs and the players seeing they supported the clubs official announcements.

Now David Gallop in his comments on the situation actually gives the impression that both Luke Lewis and Nathan Smith signed contracts with South’s and Canberra respectively but due to the new rules about contracts not being ratified by the NRL until after round 13 both had the ability to renege on even a signed contract.
http://blogs.abc.net.au/grandstand/2008/06/interview-david.html

David Gallop also goes on to comment that the rule needed to be explained to their managers which makes it seem like they did sign contracts as their managers needed an explanation as to why they would then be allowed to resign with the Panthers without fear of litigation. The fact there was a contract in place is supported by Canberra's chairman John McIntyre comments that Nathan Smith had a contract with the Raiders. It’s unclear if the contract was signed contract, a verbal contract or just an agreement via email like Steve Turner. Which seems at the very least likely as Canberra sent a few emails to Nathan Smith and his manager threatening to sue if he signed with the Panthers so it’s a reasonable conclusion that at least one of the corresponding emails alluded to an agreement by Nathan Smith with the raiders.

http://www.theroar.com.au/2008/06/07/canberra-continue-legal-threat-but-smith-signs-with-panthers/

No doubt they had agreements. I personally find the whole round 13 thing baffling. I don't see the point of it to be honest. I do wonder how this one would have gone in court, although I would assume the NRL would have clubs sign off on their registration for the season and the attached rules which would have included the round 13 clause. Everything they do beyond that would have to be in line with those rules...

Only a hunch, as I say I found both situations baffling.

 

[Iafeta]

law in theory and law in practice are two different things. you learn this when you get screwed by the courts time after time. we've had decisions where signed deadlines are clearly missed to be told close enough is good enough, the legislated rules of the court have been broken but the court doesn't apply the stipulated penalty, and several times precedents ignored.

one time the court threw our whole case out because our evidence was supposedly late even though we sent it two days before the deadline. the worst part was the defendant hadn't even lodged their evidence at all, and we had to pay their costs!!!

it's all good to say find a precedent and it's all over, but there's always precedents to suit both sides so when both sides have precedents it often comes down to what side of the bed the judge gets out of, so to speak. it's certainly worse in the lower courts, but it still happens at higher levels.

as to the email from the manager, this would definitely be damaging as it demonstrates intent. the case would still be decided on subjective issues, so there is no certainty. as i said before, we've had cases where objectively it's been flawless, and you still lose.

also, even if the court did rule it a contract, there is still the possibility he got out of it because he hadn't signed the NRL contract, which is required by NRL rules i recall. the titans could have then sought an order compelling turner to sign perhaps.

i'm not disagreeing with what you are all saying generally speaking. i'm only disagreeing that it's certain, or even almost certain, the titans would have won. they probably would have but sh*t happens sometimes.

for those doubting my experience i refer you to a couple of cases i have been involved in...

http://www.courts.qld.gov.au/esearc...leNumber=8452/06&Court=Supreme&Location=BRISB

http://www.courts.qld.gov.au/esearc...leNumber=2067/07&Court=Supreme&Location=BRISB

you will see my name in the document listings.

I don't believe the NRL requires a contract. The NRL requires an agreement to be registered through them or at least satisfy their rules.

I'd bet my left nut the Titans would have won. The Storm obviously made that concession with their counter-offer rather than go through the courts. If they truly believed they were correct, there was no point to make the junior player concession. After advice from the NRL which is run by an experienced lawyer, they decided on their best and most cost efficient option.

 

[The_Savage_1]

Luke Lewis and Nathan Smith were released from their obligations by there "new" clubs after consultation between the player and the club. The new clubs the happily released both players big, big difference. However the rules surrounding contracts within the NRL spectrum need to be changed, in an attempt to ensure contracts are honoured.

And savage, wow you have your name on court documents.
This makes do difference to your original claim that was completely wrong. It may appear to you that this was the reason for your loss in court, however the requirements for the filing of court documents/evidence that is to be presented before the presiding judge/magistrate has not changed. Your inability to fulfill this requirement refelcts on your ability to do your job in the capacity required. Blaming the "loss" of documents/evidence, and the side of the bed the judge/magistrate got out of, for a loss is bordering on dillsuional. If it was that important get off your ass, get in your car. Insert the key in the ignition and take them there yourself. Or just make sure they are there when needed. Not a difficult concept for an so called, educated person.

it would be a long drive from brisbane to sydney! it wasnt our firm that did the filing of the evidence anyway. it was one of our solicitors. the point was that we had lodged evidence, allegedly late according to the court, the other side hadn't lodged any at all, when both were due by the same day, yet we got thrown out and they didnt get any penalty. i seem to recall they may have been late previously and got away with it too.

we've also faxed docs to the court and the court says they never got it, which actually means they lost it, because we have fax logs that prove they got it. they do whatever they want and there's nothing you can do about it other than complain to the government because that's who runs the courts.

 

[The_Savage_1]

I don't believe the NRL requires a contract. The NRL requires an agreement to be registered through them or at least satisfy their rules.

I'd bet my left nut the Titans would have won. The Storm obviously made that concession with their counter-offer rather than go through the courts. If they truly believed they were correct, there was no point to make the junior player concession. After advice from the NRL which is run by an experienced lawyer, they decided on their best and most cost efficient option.

4. Players must be registered to play in the NRL Competition: rules 23, 38 and 39 of the NRL Playing Rules. Application for registration is governed by rules 40 and 41 of the NRL Playing Rules. Any person who wishes to participate as a player in the NRL Competition must, amongst other things:

"... (2) Be a party to a current NRL Playing Contract with a Club; (3) Agree with the NRL: (a)to comply with, and be bound by, the NRL Rules ... ...
(f) To grant to the NRL the right to use his name and image in connection with the promotion or marketing of the NRL Competition ..."(Rule 40).
​

5. The relationship between the NRL, each NRL Club and the NRL players is also governed by a Collective Bargaining Agreement ("CBA") negotiated by the Rugby League Professionals Association ("RLPA") with the NRL. The provisions of the CBA are expressly incorporated into the standard NRL Playing Contract. Each NRL Club is required by the NRL Playing Rules to engage players under the standard NRL Playing Contract.
6. The NRL Playing Rules define a "NRL Playing Contract" as:

"a contract between a Club on the one hand and a Player on the other hand by which the Player agrees to play Rugby League for the Club in the NRL Competition and the Related Competitions in the terms of Form 1 or in such other terms as the Chief Executive Officer may approve pursuant to Rule 28."
​

i guess it depends on what rule 28 says. i cannot find a copy of the NRL (Playing) Rules. but he never signed anything, certainly not the standard form 1 contract.

http://law.ato.gov.au/atolaw/view.h...PiT=99991231235958&recnum=1&tot=2&pn=ALL:::CC

 

[Frank_Grimes]

How is it any different? Both Luke Lewis and Nathan Smith came out in public to comment about signing for their "new clubs" and how happy they were ect. So if Steve Turner is liable because he announced it to the media so are those two. That would also imply at the very least that a verbal agreement reached between the clubs and the players seeing they supported the clubs official announcements.

Now David Gallop in his comments on the situation actually gives the impression that both Luke Lewis and Nathan Smith signed contracts with South’s and Canberra respectively but due to the new rules about contracts not being ratified by the NRL until after round 13 both had the ability to renege on even a signed contract.
http://blogs.abc.net.au/grandstand/2008/06/interview-david.html

David Gallop also goes on to comment that the rule needed to be explained to their managers which makes it seem like they did sign contracts as their managers needed an explanation as to why they would then be allowed to resign with the Panthers without fear of litigation. The fact there was a contract in place is supported by Canberra's chairman John McIntyre comments that Nathan Smith had a contract with the Raiders. It’s unclear if the contract was signed contract, a verbal contract or just an agreement via email like Steve Turner. Which seems at the very least likely as Canberra sent a few emails to Nathan Smith and his manager threatening to sue if he signed with the Panthers so it’s a reasonable conclusion that at least one of the corresponding emails alluded to an agreement by Nathan Smith with the raiders.

[URL="http://www.theroar.com.au/2008/06/07/canberra-continue-legal-threat-but-smith-signs-with-panthers/"]http://www.theroar.com.au/2008/06/07/canberra-continue-legal-threat-but-smith-signs-with-panthers/[/URL]

Did Luke Lewis and Nathan Smith have written agreements? Luke Lewis made comments to the media about courting the Rabbitohs. Steve Turner announced on radio that he was joining the Titans. As it turns out it seems the Rabbitohs were content to not sign Lewis and let the matter die out, but there is still a distinction between his case and Turner's. A strong one.

 

[Frank_Grimes]

4. Players must be registered to play in the NRL Competition: rules 23, 38 and 39 of the NRL Playing Rules. Application for registration is governed by rules 40 and 41 of the NRL Playing Rules. Any person who wishes to participate as a player in the NRL Competition must, amongst other things:

"... (2) Be a party to a current NRL Playing Contract with a Club; (3) Agree with the NRL: (a)to comply with, and be bound by, the NRL Rules ... ...
(f) To grant to the NRL the right to use his name and image in connection with the promotion or marketing of the NRL Competition ..."(Rule 40).
​

5. The relationship between the NRL, each NRL Club and the NRL players is also governed by a Collective Bargaining Agreement ("CBA") negotiated by the Rugby League Professionals Association ("RLPA") with the NRL. The provisions of the CBA are expressly incorporated into the standard NRL Playing Contract. Each NRL Club is required by the NRL Playing Rules to engage players under the standard NRL Playing Contract.
6. The NRL Playing Rules define a "NRL Playing Contract" as:

"a contract between a Club on the one hand and a Player on the other hand by which the Player agrees to play Rugby League for the Club in the NRL Competition and the Related Competitions in the terms of Form 1 or in such other terms as the Chief Executive Officer may approve pursuant to Rule 28."
​

i guess it depends on what rule 28 says. i cannot find a copy of the NRL (Playing) Rules. but he never signed anything, certainly not the standard form 1 contract.

http://law.ato.gov.au/atolaw/view.h...PiT=99991231235958&recnum=1&tot=2&pn=ALL:::CC

The issue would not have been forcing Turner to play for the Titans. He never signed a contract with them, but he signed one with the Storm, while still bound through a written agreement to the Titans. Any decison would have revolved around the Storm contract and its validity. That contract would never have been allowed to pass, and Turner would have sat in the stands instead of playing. Something that his good friends at Melbourne seemed quite content to allow to happen.

 

[pnub]

Did Luke Lewis and Nathan Smith have written agreements? Luke Lewis made comments to the media about courting the Rabbitohs. Steve Turner announced on radio that he was joining the Titans. As it turns out it seems the Rabbitohs were content to not sign Lewis and let the matter die out, but there is still a distinction between his case and Turner's. A strong one.

South Sydney's tumultuous week hit a new low when Penrith star Luke Lewis reneged on a handshake deal with the Rabbitohs to re-sign with the Panthers for a further four years.
Lewis shocked Souths by knocking back a deal reportedly worth more than $350,000 a year despite the best efforts of Rabbitohs co-owner Russell Crowe who met the former Kangaroo tourist on Tuesday.

http://www.nrl.com/News/Latest/tabid/10244/default.aspx?id=51283

Well there you go a Handshake agreement although not something sent via email it is still a verbal contract so I’d say Luke Lewis went well and truly past just courting the idea of signing for Souths.

"I feel a bit guilty," he said last night. "Russell is a champion bloke. He's so down to earth, really genuine.
"I expected someone different, being a movie star, but he made me feel comfortable.
"Richo (Souths CEO Shane Richardson) has also been good to me.
"That's why I feel so bad. I'm a bit lost for words."
The Rabbitohs trumpeted Lewis's signing with a press release and online video on their official website on April 2.
The 24-year-old agreed to terms with Souths, but under new NRL rules had until round 13 before he was required to sign the contract.
With just two weeks remaining until the deal was done, challenging family circumstances gave Lewis cold feet about shifting to Redfern.

http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,23772766-5001023,00.html

There some more detail for you. Its not the fact that they weren't content to sign him. If not for the stupid round 13 rule he would have been signed back in april. Now souths didn't make a big issue about him reneging due to his family issues that doesn't mean they didn't want to sign him.

As for Nathan Smith well like my last post showed Canberra were not at all happy with him reneging on his contract and sent a few emails threatening to sue him for breaching a contract they clearly thought he had made with them.
So once again I ask how is it any different to Steve Turner? You can find articles with them both talking about going to their new club which is exactly the same as Turner announcing it on the radio and more than likely any comments in the paper are directly quoted from radio interviews. It would seem that they both had at the very least verbal contracts or more than likely either a written agreement or one via email.