So now you're saying that we can loan Brown while Timmy gets his head together and then swap them back later on? This is the problem with bush lawyering... it often goes down a dusty track.
Your analogy sounds like you're putting the onus of liability on the person who has done nothing wrong.
At least you agree that Saints are not the offenders here.
I never said the factual situations were the same, it was your analogy. I was merely demonstrating the principle I was invoking in my first post. The facts aren't identical because it's an analogy.
There
is an onus, an onus to mitigate losses. A defendant can't be held liable for losses a defendant has not taken care to mitigate. In the case of
your analogy, a plaintiff couldn't claim their loss of profit when they could have easily avoided the majority of that loss by taking up an offer made to them by a defendant. I see some parallels with the Tigers offering Brown, depending on how you characterise the loss. It was admittedly rash to state it as unequivocally as I did.
I don't actually care about the compo. To me it's more about doing the right thing. If you agree to something then you should do your best to follow through. I'm more curious about the desperate measures some WT supporters are going to in trying to wriggle their way out of any moral responsibility. The legal mumbo-jumbo, semantics and splitting hairs down to the finest slither is just bullshit people do to get out of doing the right thing.
Honestly, the legal mumbo-jumbo is very interesting to me. I take your point though.
Clearly Moltzen or Tauber, or both have done the wrong thing and have earned the ire of Dragons' fans. I'm not so sure that is true of Humphreys. He has stated several times that he has a different view of events to Doust. I don't think there is concrete evidence that Humphreys viewed Moltzen as released when the signing occurred. Sure it's still not amazing behavior but it's not exactly a first either - Lewis & the Rabbitohs, Turner & the Titans spring to mind. These were even worse in that there was no subsisting contract.
lol. I figured that much. Well good luck with that. Perhaps real estate law is more your style.
That actually has lots of contract law...
