Pascoe sanctioned by the NRL

[Ags]

Take it all the way i reckon, if the lawyers are happy to proceed with the evidence available. As a major sponsor of the tigers, brydens will have a vested intrest in winning, and creating as much headlines as possible. I dont think they would take it on if there was a chance of losing.
A reduction of that much from our cap basically cripples us next year and possibly the next. Fight this till the bitter end

 

[hammertime]

It would be interesting in a court of law as, putting everything else aside, a contract is only binding when both parties have signed. No?

 

[sheer64]

It would be interesting in a court of law as, putting everything else aside, a contract is only binding when both parties have signed. No?

No unfortunately intent is a factor.

 

[Cultured_Bogan]

It would be interesting in a court of law as, putting everything else aside, a contract is only binding when both parties have signed. No?

No unfortunately intent is a factor.

I had always thought that for a contract to be binding there had to be an offer and acceptance.

 

[TrueTiger]

IF your interested in contractual law and how it affects parties ,pleases read on …..

""A contract is a promise or set of promises that is legally binding..in this context a promise is an undertaking by one person to do something or refrain from doing something if another person does something or refrains from doing something or makes a promise in return..A promise or set of promises will be legally binding if certain criteria are met…
In Australia this requires that there be...

1.An agreement comprising an offer and acceptance.
2.consideration
3.INTENTION to create legal relations
4.capacity to contract
5.compliance with any legal formalities..

If Pascoe hasn't intended to form a contractual agreement at the time but made a promise then it must have been accepted at the time...otherwise it is not legally binding …
\
\
Good luck with the NRL and the legal system...if this is fair then Pascoe hasn't done anything wrong as RF hasn't accepted or agreed to anything at the time...

 

[prattenparkchild]

Another way of looking at same situation in a different light- Pascoe as a legal representative of WT makes an contractual offer to Farah but Farah doesnt sign it as he wants time to consider, time goes on as it has, contract is still technically a valid offer as Pascoe as an authorised WT officer is still in authorised position, but it is only still an offer that hasnt been rescinded. NRL has taken Pascoe's accreditation away and he is no longer a authorised WT officer.

Doesnt that then make the contract offer of X date invalid anyway because the person offered the contract (Farah) has not signed the offer by the time the authorised officer has been removed?

As such, the contract offer is null and void as the authorised officer for the club will no longer be Pascoe and this contract offer was only valid for the term of his tenure and potential signing by Farah. Pascoe gone, offer no longer valid, new authorised officer, new period of validity- a new contract offer would be required from a new authorised officer. .

Immaterial that Pascoe has signed the offer, NRL has punted him and any offered contract not signed by the time of his departure is voided. The club can no longer be responsible as his authority to act and sign on their behalf has been removed.

THANKS NRL HQ, stick that one here the son dont shine…...... Thoughts?

 

[mike]

Interesting aspect @prattenparkchild. I would love to hear from a specialist contracts lawyer about the validity of the contract in question.

 

[cktiger]

If that’s the case@TT then we should get off easily . It’s been said time and again that Farah has not accepted the offer … rendering it invalid going by your post.

 

[Cultured_Bogan]

Falls over at point 1\. Regardless if there is a signed contract by Wests, if Farah's signature is missing then there is no acceptance.

 

[cochise]

What if the only reason it isn't signed by Farah yet is to purposefully deceive the NRL?

 

[Cultured_Bogan]

How do they prove that?

Farah could just say "I thought it over and didn't want to commit myself."

Plenty of reasons why he wouldn't have signed it.

 

[diedpretty]

"What if the only reason it isn’t signed by Farah yet is to purposefully deceive the NRL?"

:rofl:

 

[cochise]

Depends what the text msgs say I would guess, the reasoning for hiding the contract etv

 

[Cultured_Bogan]

Very true. We'll see in time I guess.

 

[Snake]

Have posted before I couldn’t imagine Pascoe sending incriminating texts messages to a player manager with the past deals at the club that person has had….but I cannot understand that anyone does business via texts that can be kept forever fools game that one !

 

[cochise]

I sincerely hope this is all just some misunderstanding.

 

[Cultured_Bogan]

I think we all agree on that one.

I know we all feel hard done by because it's our club, but I can't shake the feeling that if it were Easts or the Broncos they would have got away with it, especially after Andrew Gee became a deaf/mute.

 

[supercoach]

When you are trying to send a message by waving a big stick you pick your target. The NRL would not take on a powerhouse club, you pick on the vulnerable

 

[Cultured_Bogan]

Could backfire spectacularly on them if we come in on top.

 

[cochise]

It's hard though because we put ourselves in a position to be whacked.