BulldogYeezus
Waterboy
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2020
- Messages
- 27
- Reaction score
- 61
Depends on the intention of the parties. See Masters v Cameron [1954] HCA 72Heads of agreement is not legally binding
Depends on the intention of the parties. See Masters v Cameron [1954] HCA 72Heads of agreement is not legally binding
Tigers will not realease a suitable player to trade, they dont have a leg to stand on.Depends on the intention of the parties. See Masters v Cameron [1954] HCA 72
So then why would barrett say the situation with JAC is complicated? It must be the difficulty finding a player to exchange with the stormHeads of agreement is not legally binding
You do realise that the player has to agree, they can simply say “no” and their contract with us has to be honoured.Give them any of remis, okonbor,
Dwz or meaney. Surely one will be a option for them and one might go. Fuck I’d even say Crichton could go well there. I’d even cop hoppa. Anyone basically not cotric or Jake from our backs.
I could address every single point individually,bateman didnt sign becasued he missed his kids- already in the paper- fail
The Anderson situation been papers all year with multiple journo's calling for her to stand down- fail
Flannigan already in the papers- fail
Price sacked- already in papers for Months- fail
Lafai- Fail
JAC- been in papers that we have talking to him, all you have done is taking a stab about him signing- 50/50% chance
as i said when you release something before it is has been released in the press, then come back.
otherwise you are full of shit as usual.
you can even google cool off periods probably #dumbcunt
The fact that you can not counter argue this shows you are a fraud and liarI could address every single point individually,
but for now id just like to point out for the readers how old mate above^ conveniently decided to leave out the point about the EGM papers (i preemptively pointed out he would do this).
He tries here to address every fact with a cloudy circle logic to justify it, but on the one with nuts and bolts proof he knew he couldnt come back too, he ignores. Which means he knows what he is doing.
So the question dear readers, is to ask yourself, what is his ^ agenda?
I miss him. Bring back Nasheed.More importantly, why did Nasheed get banned?
The ceo is saying it is im not sureHeads of agreement is not legally binding
From an Australian contract law perspective, the terms of a heads of agreement will be binding if each party did in fact intend for those terms to be binding on each such party. However, if the heads of agreement includes words to the effect of ‘agreement subject to contract’ or similar, it is likely that there will be no binding agreement until a formal contract is prepared and executed.The ceo is saying it is im not sure
toilet paper is quite valuable in this day and age thoughWe all know that any formal agreement or contract drawn up in the NRL is only as good as the toilet paper it is written on.
toilet paper is quite valuable in this day and age though
on the tigers forum saying they are confident he has signed with tigers and will be announced after origin........looks like nasheeds good oil was full of sludge and cow shitall I’m going to add is if Nasheed gets JAC right, 50% chance or not, the proverbial oil has some merit
Yeah covid-19 and panic buying has been good for the hygiene industry, cha ching $$$toilet paper is quite valuable in this day and age though
Or, see Des Hasler v Canterbury Bulldogs [2017] and quote the former Chairman that it ‘wasn’t binding’ and ‘wouldn’t cost the club a cent’ when it wasn’t honoured and he was shown the door.Depends on the intention of the parties. See Masters v Cameron [1954] HCA 72
Quite a few ppl were sent that documentby the way. So its not really anything to boast aboutyou have not given us one peace of information BEFORE it has hit the papers. All you have done is just taken a stab on what might happen.
IE flannagan, you gambled and lost.
i will respect your "oil" if you post BEFORE it hits the media.