STU-SA

[Prufrock]

Iles says "his representatives have now sent documents that will be signed off in person at the end of next month".

Good news, but it's NOT signed. Until it's signed he can go anywhere else.

I've seen some prevarication in my time (Jussi comes to mind) and I do tend to believe it will happen, but promising that you will sign something is different to signing it. Christ, can the guy not write ?

You're the employment expert, so maybe I've missed something, but, as I understand it, if he's been offered terms and agreed to them, it's done. There may be a problem proving it, but if he's sent these documents and there's an agreement, it's done, no?

No.


I've not seen the detailed elements of the contract, or the 'letter of intent' of course, so it IS feasible that the words cover it .... but in that case, sign the contract.

The reason contracts exist is because they tie parties to certain conditions. Saying "I'm going to sign it" and the other party saying "good-oh" is positive and honest people will proceed as planned.

If meanwhile, however, Real Madrid come in & offer him 4x his pay and a go in the Bernabau (or Bury and Gigg Lane) he can still have us called up and told "look, it's like this ...".

Equally, let's say he gets another bad injury, we could still say "well, look ... really sorry and all that, but ...".

I feel it'll all sort out, but it's weird that they don't just sign it. Imagine if this was a house you were buying and someone behaved like this. Or if you agreed to buy a car and said "look, I'll sign the papers next month, but can I just go on holiday in it meanwhile ?" you'd feel they were playing a game.

That is in my mind & will be until he's used a pen and scratched his name on the contract.

Maybe that's the case, but I think there's a certain amount if ritual involved in football contracts. The whole fancy pen, do it on the pitch, cameras watching kind of thing. It depends what's in these papers. If he's had an offer that says 'X amount, Y years plus this this and that', and he replies agreeing to that it's done. He could be prevaricating, it could be he's just not in the country.

Part of me shares your niggling doubts regarding him not signing it while he was here, but no-one seems to be panicking so I'd imagine it's done, or they're very confident it will be.

[thebish]

Part of me shares your niggling doubts regarding him not signing it while he was here, but no-one seems to be panicking so I'd imagine it's done, or they're very confident it will be.

or... they are trying hard not to appear panicky in public!

[Prufrock]

Iles says "his representatives have now sent documents that will be signed off in person at the end of next month".

Good news, but it's NOT signed. Until it's signed he can go anywhere else.

I've seen some prevarication in my time (Jussi comes to mind) and I do tend to believe it will happen, but promising that you will sign something is different to signing it. Christ, can the guy not write ?

You're the employment expert, so maybe I've missed something, but, as I understand it, if he's been offered terms and agreed to them, it's done. There may be a problem proving it, but if he's sent these documents and there's an agreement, it's done, no?

I can't say for certain with football, but if it's anything like the graduate contract I signed last year until your pen hits the paper you can do what you want; decide against it, sign for another company (football team here) or whatever. You might piss people off and it may appear "rude" but legally nothing is done until he signs.

That's not true. I know someone who agreed to a training contract with a law firm, then changed his mind, without signing, but having given 'unqualified assent' (I honestly didn't want to turn this into a legal theory thread, but there we go) to certain terms. They threatened to sue him as it was undoubtedly breach of contract. In those cases, in reality, they don't because it isn't worth it, but that isn't going to be the case with a potential multi-million pound asset.

[Prufrock]

Unless there is something specific in cases of this sort that I am unaware of, no. A verbal contract is no less binding than any other. If the content of these 'papers' is a contract offer, and he's accepted it, then it's done, regardless of signature. I'd be surprised if league rules didn't require a signed contract, and it's always better for clarity and proof to have it signed. Point being that if it is 'agreed' then the signing is a formality and there's no need to worry.

presumably the signing is to prove there was agreement - otherwise (presumably) you'd need witnesses?

Kinda. The reason it is in writing is for proof. There are certain situations in which certain levels of evidence are required to prove there was an agreement, usually relating to land and other property (I thought there may be in employment, which I know almost nowt about specifically, but it appears not from what Bobes has said), but usually it's just evidential.

In situations such as this, the signature itself doesn't mean much more than having a written agreement, which they may have without having the cheesy grin for the cameras whilst he signs it.

[bobo the clown]

Unless there is something specific in cases of this sort that I am unaware of, no. A verbal contract is no less binding than any other. If the content of these 'papers' is a contract offer, and he's accepted it, then it's done, regardless of signature. I'd be surprised if league rules didn't require a signed contract, and it's always better for clarity and proof to have it signed. Point being that if it is 'agreed' then the signing is a formality and there's no need to worry.

In the normal World the old "verbal contract" is all well and good, but as I can sack you without reason with no come back (assuming no discrimination) then it doesn't offer you much solace, does it ?

Consider the car or house purchase scenarios I gave .... there will be many more. A 'verbal contract' would carry little weight there. Plus, by the very nature of it, if one party wished to back out it the legal shenanigans that would follow would take months and cost £lots.

This is an unusual employment contract in that, as a football player, it probably doesn't include a notice period (which is why managers get paid-up when let go, for example). So it'd be a very one-way deal.

Until signed by both parties it may as well not exist. We've heard the warm words for weeks. He was all sorted when he went to Sheffield I recall, but hey ... he couldn't pop over.

As I said, I haven't viewed the weasel words, but I'd wager there is more complexity in the letter of intent than the actual contract.

This is weird to me and could be easily sorted.

[thebish]

Unless there is something specific in cases of this sort that I am unaware of, no. A verbal contract is no less binding than any other. If the content of these 'papers' is a contract offer, and he's accepted it, then it's done, regardless of signature. I'd be surprised if league rules didn't require a signed contract, and it's always better for clarity and proof to have it signed. Point being that if it is 'agreed' then the signing is a formality and there's no need to worry.

presumably the signing is to prove there was agreement - otherwise (presumably) you'd need witnesses?

Kinda. The reason it is in writing is for proof. There are certain situations in which certain levels of evidence are required to prove there was an agreement, usually relating to land and other property (I thought there may be in employment, which I know almost nowt about specifically, but it appears not from what Bobes has said).

In situations such as this, the signature itself doesn't mean much more than having a written agreement, which they may have without having the cheesy grin for the cameras whilst he signs it.

but surely all such agreements are typed (via computer) - so how can it be proved that a particular person wrote it? anyone can type a letter saying someone agrees to a contract - how is that provable? fingerprinting??

[Prufrock]

Part of me shares your niggling doubts regarding him not signing it while he was here, but no-one seems to be panicking so I'd imagine it's done, or they're very confident it will be.

or... they are trying hard not to appear panicky in public!

Perhaps, I'm feeling optimistic

[thebish]

anyway - aren't you out with mummy protesting at the houses of parliament?

[Prufrock]

Unless there is something specific in cases of this sort that I am unaware of, no. A verbal contract is no less binding than any other. If the content of these 'papers' is a contract offer, and he's accepted it, then it's done, regardless of signature. I'd be surprised if league rules didn't require a signed contract, and it's always better for clarity and proof to have it signed. Point being that if it is 'agreed' then the signing is a formality and there's no need to worry.

In the normal World the old "verbal contract" is all well and good, but as I can sack you without reason with no come back (assuming no discrimination) then it doesn't offer you much solace, does it ?

Consider the car or house purchase scenarios I gave .... there will be many more. A 'verbal contract' would carry little weight there. Plus, by the very nature of it, if one party wished to back out it the legal shenanigans that would follow would take months and cost £lots.

This is an unusual employment contract in that, as a football player, it probably doesn't include a notice period (which is why managers get paid-up when let go, for example). So it'd be a very one-way deal.

Until signed by both parties it may as well not exist. We've heard the warm words for weeks. He was all sorted when he went to Sheffield I recall, but hey ... he couldn't pop over.

As I said, I haven't viewed the weasel words, but I'd wager there is more complexity in the letter of intent than the actual contract.

This is weird to me and could be easily sorted.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting that we're actually relying on a verbal contract. My point is that it may well all have been agreed and sorted in writing, but in football there's a specific ritual about actually signing the contract which isn't a 'legal' thing at all, but is a PR exercise.

[bobo the clown]

I know someone who agreed to a training contract with a law firm, then changed his mind, without signing, but having given 'unqualified assent' (I honestly didn't want to turn this into a legal theory thread, but there we go) to certain terms.

They threatened to sue him as it was undoubtedly breach of contract. In those cases, in reality, they don't because it isn't worth it, but that isn't going to be the case with a potential multi-million pound asset.

It was breach, but with no effect.

I ... due to circumstances ... have had the regrettable task of calling people who we'd offered work to and then an unforeseen business issue arose and I had to tell them it was withdrawn. In some cases the person had left their previous job. It was awful, but we could show it was for genuine and previously unknown reasons. (this would apply in the case of him getting another big injury for example).

They had no employment rights over us.

I guess they could seek damages but they would struggle to get very much as it was an innocent action by the proposed employer, however horrible the situation.

[Prufrock]

Unless there is something specific in cases of this sort that I am unaware of, no. A verbal contract is no less binding than any other. If the content of these 'papers' is a contract offer, and he's accepted it, then it's done, regardless of signature. I'd be surprised if league rules didn't require a signed contract, and it's always better for clarity and proof to have it signed. Point being that if it is 'agreed' then the signing is a formality and there's no need to worry.

presumably the signing is to prove there was agreement - otherwise (presumably) you'd need witnesses?

Kinda. The reason it is in writing is for proof. There are certain situations in which certain levels of evidence are required to prove there was an agreement, usually relating to land and other property (I thought there may be in employment, which I know almost nowt about specifically, but it appears not from what Bobes has said).

In situations such as this, the signature itself doesn't mean much more than having a written agreement, which they may have without having the cheesy grin for the cameras whilst he signs it.

but surely all such agreements are typed (via computer) - so how can it be proved that a particular person wrote it? anyone can type a letter saying someone agrees to a contract - how is that provable? fingerprinting??

Aye - coz no-one's ever forged a signature!

You could argue it wasn't you what agreed it guv', but I'd not bank on winning!

[Prufrock]

anyway - aren't you out with mummy protesting at the houses of parliament?

Nope, I didn't even know it was happening! I hope they win though.

[Prufrock]

I know someone who agreed to a training contract with a law firm, then changed his mind, without signing, but having given 'unqualified assent' (I honestly didn't want to turn this into a legal theory thread, but there we go) to certain terms.

They threatened to sue him as it was undoubtedly breach of contract. In those cases, in reality, they don't because it isn't worth it, but that isn't going to be the case with a potential multi-million pound asset.

It was breach, but with no effect.

I ... due to circumstances ... have had the regrettable task of calling people who we'd offered work to and then an unforeseen business issue arose and I had to tell them it was withdrawn. In some cases the person had left their previous job. It was awful, but we could show it was for genuine and previously unknown reasons. (this would apply in the case of him getting another big injury for example).

They had no employment rights over us.

I guess they could seek damages I guess but they would struggle to get very much as it was an innocent action by the proposed employer, however horrible the situation.

Hmm, I'm decidedly unconvinced by that! No 'employment rights' sure, as in no statutory employment rights. Not to say they wouldn't have any contractual rights. As I say, I'm far from an expert on employment law, but without any specific provisions, that isn't the case in 'normal' contract law.

There'd be evidential problems in proving what the terms of the contract actually were, and said person would have a duty to mitigate losses by finding another job, AND I'm not sure it would be practical to actually pursue it, but notwithstanding all of that, I'm not convinced you'd have been all right with 'well, something has come up'.

[bobo the clown]

Interesting. I asked a family friend who was a lawyer whether I could decline a job despite verbally accepting it on the phone if another one came along without signing a contract and he told me yes as it would not be legally binding until pen hit paper. Maybe it's some sort of grey area then?

He was right ... in practice if not in word.

What can they do to you ??

Even if you have signed it, you call them, all embarrassed and wimpish sounding and say "sorry, but ...". They can't forcibly bring you into work. You COULD be forced to attend for your notice ... whereby they do what ? Put you through induction, meet the team, go on a few training courses, get your pass, pc access and pension set up .... only to leave after a week or a month ??

So, they may pout and you'd hope not to have to deal with them again maybe, but you cannot be punitively treated.

[bobo the clown]

I know someone who agreed to a training contract with a law firm, then changed his mind, without signing, but having given 'unqualified assent' (I honestly didn't want to turn this into a legal theory thread, but there we go) to certain terms.

They threatened to sue him as it was undoubtedly breach of contract. In those cases, in reality, they don't because it isn't worth it, but that isn't going to be the case with a potential multi-million pound asset.

It was breach, but with no effect.

I ... due to circumstances ... have had the regrettable task of calling people who we'd offered work to and then an unforeseen business issue arose and I had to tell them it was withdrawn. In some cases the person had left their previous job. It was awful, but we could show it was for genuine and previously unknown reasons. (this would apply in the case of him getting another big injury for example).

They had no employment rights over us.

I guess they could seek damages I guess but they would struggle to get very much as it was an innocent action by the proposed employer, however horrible the situation.

Hmm, I'm decidedly unconvinced by that. No 'employment rights' sure, as in no statutory employment rights. Not to say they wouldn't have any contractual rights.

There'd be evidential problems in proving what the terms of the contract actually were, and said person would have a duty to mitigate losses by finding another job, AND I'm not sure it would be practical to actually pursue it, but notwithstanding all of that, I'm not convinced you'd have been all right with 'well, something has come up'.

Well, you did start all this by saying you knew f'call about employment contracts, so fair play to you.

[thebish]

I know someone who agreed to a training contract with a law firm, then changed his mind, without signing, but having given 'unqualified assent' (I honestly didn't want to turn this into a legal theory thread, but there we go) to certain terms.

They threatened to sue him as it was undoubtedly breach of contract. In those cases, in reality, they don't because it isn't worth it, but that isn't going to be the case with a potential multi-million pound asset.

It was breach, but with no effect.

I ... due to circumstances ... have had the regrettable task of calling people who we'd offered work to and then an unforeseen business issue arose and I had to tell them it was withdrawn. In some cases the person had left their previous job. It was awful, but we could show it was for genuine and previously unknown reasons. (this would apply in the case of him getting another big injury for example).

They had no employment rights over us.

I guess they could seek damages I guess but they would struggle to get very much as it was an innocent action by the proposed employer, however horrible the situation.

Hmm, I'm decidedly unconvinced by that. No 'employment rights' sure, as in no statutory employment rights. Not to say they wouldn't have any contractual rights.

There'd be evidential problems in proving what the terms of the contract actually were, and said person would have a duty to mitigate losses by finding another job, AND I'm not sure it would be practical to actually pursue it, but notwithstanding all of that, I'm not convinced you'd have been all right with 'well, something has come up'.

Well, you did start all this by saying you knew f'call about employment contracts, so fair play to you.

It's called "an opinion", it's not fact.
This is a fans forum, not a Court of Law and hard & fast proof is not required .... is it ?
Mentally beating someone senseless coz you disagree with them is tiresome.
Mentally beating someone senseless when you may not disagree with them, but coz it's fun to do is unreasonable.

[bobo the clown]

Except these are facts.

[jaffka]

Except these are facts.

Is the clown losing his sense of humour?

[Prufrock]

I said I knew nothing about employment law. There are other aspects to employment law than contract law, but my fundamental contract law itself is (I think) pretty good, and I work in 'contract law' (albeit a very specific area, unrelated to employment). Statutory employment rights I know naff all about.

There may be statute or case law specific to employment which contradicts what I've said (and it is also possible, if unthinkable, that I'm wrong about the contract stuff too ), but you haven't mentioned any. You're above post seems to be getting at frustrated contracts, which is actually a pretty high threshold. It would have to both completely alter the nature of the contract AND be unforeseeable. I don't know this, and there's probably case law on it, but I'd imagine Stu doing his knee again (out for the whole year) wouldn't frustrate the contract, but him being run over (out for a year) would, for example.

[bobo the clown]

Except these are facts.

Is the clown losing his sense of humour?

It briefly did.

It's odd to be asked something ... you answer it ... and then be told you're wrong.

Anyone know any jokes ??