More on Steve Turner

  • We had an issue with background services between march 10th and 15th or there about. This meant the payment services were not linking to automatic upgrades. If you paid for premium membership and are still seeing ads please let me know and the email you used against PayPal and I cam manually verify and upgrade your account.
  • We have been getting regular requests for users who have been locked out of their accounts because they have changed email adresses over the lifetime of their accounts. Please make sure the email address under your account is your current and correct email address in order to avoid this in the future. You can set your email address at https://silvertails.net/account/account-details
  • Wwe are currently experience some server issues which I am working through and hoping to resolve soon, Please bare with me whilst I work through making some changes and possible intermittent outages.
  • Apologies all our server was runing rogue. I managed to get us back to a point from 2:45 today though there is an attachment issue i will fix shortly. Things should be smooth now though

fLIP

UFO Hunter
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.
 
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
 
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.
 
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.
 
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
 
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.
 
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
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Susie O'Neill has twice the number of Olympic gold medals AND twice the IQ of our token indigenous hero.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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

  • lsz
    First Grader
  • Jethro
    Star Trekkin' across the universe

Latest posts

Team P W L PD Pts
10 9 1 124 20
10 8 2 81 18
10 7 3 70 16
10 7 3 69 16
11 7 4 59 14
10 6 4 -10 14
11 6 5 107 12
11 6 5 -9 12
10 5 5 -56 12
11 5 5 30 11
10 4 6 15 10
11 5 6 -12 10
11 4 6 -7 9
10 3 7 -103 8
10 2 8 -81 6
10 2 8 -91 6
10 1 9 -186 4
Back
Top Bottom