Welcome!

By registering with us, you'll be able to discuss, share and private message with other members of our community.

SignUp Now!

More on Steve Turner

fLIP

UFO Hunter
Joined
Jul 15, 2004
Messages
7,467
Its in the news quite a bit up here and I find it quite interesting. I've never seen such a tug of war over a player under contract. I say contract because Steve Turner has asked for a compassionate release from the Titans. Which strikes me as a man who knows he has entered into an agreement. Why would he ask for a release if he hadn't completed his signing?

Also, it turnes out he has been recieving wages from the Titans since the begining of November. Of course that hasn't been a problem... until the titans issued him with a series of fines for missing training sesions. Now he has a problem.

If you ask me Steve is showing up to be quite a brat. I think if he doesn't play for the Titans he should be de-registered from the NRL for the length of his contract with the Titans. If he gets away with this I can see it happening everywhere.
 

Fluffy

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 12, 2004
Messages
21,146
yeah if he has been recieving a salaray then he has agreed to a contract.

as you say it could be a pandoras box if he gets let off
 

The Wheel

https://membership.seaeagles.com.au/
Premium Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2004
Messages
15,630
Personally as he has not signed a contract I don't think the Titans would have a leg to stand on in a court of law.
 

Utility Player

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 1, 1970
Messages
3,211
Personally as he has not signed a contract I don't think the Titans would have a leg to stand on in a court of law.
Please see other thread before we start this again :D

As Flip said he's like a kid throwing all his toys out of the sandpit. Just needs a good kick in the bum.
 

Fluffy

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 12, 2004
Messages
21,146
damn Up - i could have just cut and paste from there and had the whole arguement again ;)
 

Spuds Bodyguard

Active Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2005
Messages
682
Absolutely despite what others may say the titans are in a rock solid position and keep solidifying their position where everything coming out of Turners Camp seems to be pointing to that he agreed then backflipped
 

Jatz Crackers

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Nov 5, 2005
Messages
9,326
The accepting of pay expresses an agreement and intent to sign I would have thought.
From a legal perspective (provided it is construed a type of fee for service) it is contractual evidence.
 

Spuds Bodyguard

Active Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2005
Messages
682
The interesting point would be to know how much were they paying him. Are they just throwing random amounts of money at him because if they were paying him agreed payment it is pretty hard to turn around and say that there was no contractual arrangement regrdless if there is a signature or not
 

Ryan

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 16, 2004
Messages
18,867
This takes me back to my Accounting subjects, and Commercial Law - I think it's applicable here, and this case changed the practices in law over contracts. It's the Carbolic Smokeball case. Anyways, here's some interesting stuff (well to myself anyway):-

Contracts

The Carbolic Smoke Ball offer, which bankrupted the Co. because it could not fulfill the terms it advertised Contract is based on the Latin phrase pacta sund servanda (literally, promises must be kept). Almost everyone makes contracts everyday. Contracts can be made orally, like buying a newspaper, or in writing, like signing a contract of employment. Sometimes writing is required for a contract, like buying a house.

In common law jurisdictions there are four key elements to the creation of a contract, illustrated in Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Company. A medical firm released an advert for its new wonderdrug: the Smokeball. The firm said anyone who bought and used its smokeball for throat problems and did not find results would get £100. The Smokeball did not work for a lot of people. They all sued for their £100. Fearing bankruptcy Carbolic argued advert was merely an 'invitation to treat': not every shop window advert means that there will be stock for the product, and so their advert was like a pre contractual negotiation. But the House of Lords ruled that Carbolic's advert contained all four key elements for people to create contracts straight away: (1) Carbolic made an offer for £100 (2) people accepted it by simply using the Smoke Ball and not getting better (3) users and Carbolic both 'intended' to be legally bound because 'intention' is interpreted on an objective basis (4) both sides provided 'consideration' for the deal, by giving something of value to the other (money or the smoke ball).

In Civil Law jurisdictions, consideration is not necessarily a requirement for a contract. However, in common law systems the concept of culpa in contrahendo or estoppel is increasingly used to create obligations during pre-contractual negotiations.

-----------------------------------------------------------

Look at the 4 points guys.

(1) Carbolic made an offer for £100
Gold Coast made an offer to Steve Turner to play football for them.

(2) people accepted it by simply using the Smoke Ball and not getting better
It was just accepted by Gold Coast that he would play for them, so they ceased negotiations for & with other players in his position.

(3) users and Carbolic both 'intended' to be legally bound because 'intention' is interpreted on an objective basis

Gold Coast's intention was that he would be part of their roster in 2007. That is the way they interpreted the negotiations, but maybe with less objective thought than in the Carbolic case.

(4) both sides provided 'consideration' for the deal, by giving something of value to the other (money or the smoke ball).

Both sides DEFINITELY considered the deal, because pricing & terms were agreed upon. Value was given to both parties.

That my friends is the system by which a contract is determined. All (4) legal check(s) in my books have been satisfied.

Gold Coast should take Steve Turner to the cleaners. Imagine having to fall back on Chris Walker due to this, when there were a few gun wingers available (Grothe for example) able to negotiate.
 

Locky

New Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2005
Messages
16
This takes me back to my Accounting subjects, and Commercial Law - I think it's applicable here, and this case changed the practices in law over contracts. It's the Carbolic Smokeball case. Anyways, here's some interesting stuff (well to myself anyway):-

Contracts

The Carbolic Smoke Ball offer, which bankrupted the Co. because it could not fulfill the terms it advertised Contract is based on the Latin phrase pacta sund servanda (literally, promises must be kept). Almost everyone makes contracts everyday. Contracts can be made orally, like buying a newspaper, or in writing, like signing a contract of employment. Sometimes writing is required for a contract, like buying a house.

In common law jurisdictions there are four key elements to the creation of a contract, illustrated in Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Company. A medical firm released an advert for its new wonderdrug: the Smokeball. The firm said anyone who bought and used its smokeball for throat problems and did not find results would get £100. The Smokeball did not work for a lot of people. They all sued for their £100. Fearing bankruptcy Carbolic argued advert was merely an 'invitation to treat': not every shop window advert means that there will be stock for the product, and so their advert was like a pre contractual negotiation. But the House of Lords ruled that Carbolic's advert contained all four key elements for people to create contracts straight away: (1) Carbolic made an offer for £100 (2) people accepted it by simply using the Smoke Ball and not getting better (3) users and Carbolic both 'intended' to be legally bound because 'intention' is interpreted on an objective basis (4) both sides provided 'consideration' for the deal, by giving something of value to the other (money or the smoke ball).

In Civil Law jurisdictions, consideration is not necessarily a requirement for a contract. However, in common law systems the concept of culpa in contrahendo or estoppel is increasingly used to create obligations during pre-contractual negotiations.

-----------------------------------------------------------

Look at the 4 points guys.

(1) Carbolic made an offer for £100
Gold Coast made an offer to Steve Turner to play football for them.

(2) people accepted it by simply using the Smoke Ball and not getting better
It was just accepted by Gold Coast that he would play for them, so they ceased negotiations for & with other players in his position.

(3) users and Carbolic both 'intended' to be legally bound because 'intention' is interpreted on an objective basis

Gold Coast's intention was that he would be part of their roster in 2007. That is the way they interpreted the negotiations, but maybe with less objective thought than in the Carbolic case.

(4) both sides provided 'consideration' for the deal, by giving something of value to the other (money or the smoke ball).

Both sides DEFINITELY considered the deal, because pricing & terms were agreed upon. Value was given to both parties.

That my friends is the system by which a contract is determined. All (4) legal check(s) in my books have been satisfied.

Gold Coast should take Steve Turner to the cleaners. Imagine having to fall back on Chris Walker due to this, when there were a few gun wingers available (Grothe for example) able to negotiate.
I just studied Commercial Law at Tafe this semester. Its a good and interesting subject.

From my perspective, he should be training with the Titans. He said on a TV report shortly after he was "signed" that he was looking forward to playing for the Titans.
 

Matabele

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2004
Messages
23,083
Turner is Generation Y is he not? Then he wouldn't even understand the meaning of the word "commitment" let alone act on it.

Just ask another of his generational chums - Ian Thorpe.
 

byso

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2004
Messages
9,621
I actually agree with your comment re: Thorpe.

But I couldn't help but remind you of Freemans literal 15 mins of fame. Nothing makes me laugh more than hearing her name added when talking of the BEST Aussie Olympians. Only by the media though.
 

Matabele

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2004
Messages
23,083
Susie O'Neill has twice the number of Olympic gold medals AND twice the IQ of our token indigenous hero.
 

Ryan

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 16, 2004
Messages
18,867
That's not the point. It's what extra value add to society is drawn from their status Andrew. Freeman has added millions to indigineous society.
 

Matabele

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2004
Messages
23,083
As evidenced by her reaffirming the stereotype of the drunken aborigine in her speech immediately after winning her race in Sydney. All class with the eyes of the world on us.
 

Ryan

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 16, 2004
Messages
18,867
People can only perform to the best of their ability intelligence wise (yeah, yeah, yeah guys).

It's impossible in that field to raise the bar.

I'm not saying she's the best or anything, what I'm saying is that she TRIED her best, and added a lot in sponsoring valid causes.

To me, that means she is a champion.

As a parent, I'm surprised you see different.
 

Stevie

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2004
Messages
924
To see Freeman lighting the Torch at Sydney 2000 was a disgrace , She couldnt hold a candle to those Legends that passed the Torch to her
 

Staff online

Latest posts

2020 Ladder

Team P W D L PD Pts
1 Panthers 20 18 1 1 299 37
2 Storm 19 16 0 3 266 32
3 Eels 20 15 0 5 104 30
4 Roosters 20 14 0 6 230 28
5 Raiders 20 14 0 6 128 28
6 Rabbitohs 20 12 0 8 169 24
7 Knights 20 11 1 8 47 23
8 Sharks 20 10 0 10 0 20
9 Titans 20 9 0 11 -117 18
10 Tigers 20 7 0 13 -65 14
11 Sea Eagles 19 7 0 12 -122 14
12 Warriors 19 7 0 12 -127 14
13 Dragons 19 6 0 13 -82 12
14 Cowboys 20 5 0 15 -152 10
15 Bulldogs 20 3 0 17 -222 6
16 Broncos 20 3 0 17 -356 6
Top Bottom