[poll] Steve Turner

[fLIP]

I'm not sure how much coverage the story is getting south of the Tweed but how many of you think Steve Turner should honor his verbal agreement to sign with the Titans?

For those that aren't up to speed, he verbally agreed with the Titans to a contract for next season and I think one more. Nothing was put in writing but their is video evidence of him speaking about his intentions and an email to Titans from his manager confirming his decision. After his verbal agreement he was offered a reported $100,000 more than his Titans contract to sign again for the Storm and thus he signed with Melbourne. The NRL is refusing to register that contract. The Titans have even offered a release for the end of 2007 season seeing as though they didn't chase another winger after he agreed.

So, whats your opinion of a contract? Is it finalized when the contract has a signature on it? Or can we just say he agreed verbally to play for a club so thats final?

 

[Guest]

Verbal agreements are hard to defend in court. I can understand why the Titans are playing hard ball because if they let him go then they could also lose half their team.

Adam Mogg has offered to go to the Titans instead.he would probably be better then Turner anyway.

 

[earl]

Couple of things.
If he verbally agreed and it was after the anti-tampering deadline, then Titans should have flown someone down there that day to get his signature. That said , he should go to the titans. If he doesnt his career will surely be over. NRL wont accept contract form Melbourne so he cant play there , he would have to sit out a season or tewo , then who would wanthim.
He wants to stay in Melb cause of his GF and not money. Well, his GF wants to date an NRL star , she should follow him whereever he goes.

 

[byso]

Bugger the GF. Go to the Titans.

 

[Fluffy]

Hard to tell what actaully went on

Remember we have signed many over the last year or two even though they have gone to other clubs, im sure others have given verbal agreement only to go elsewhere too. Did he agree to a full on contract or did he give an expression of interest type agreement?

From a fans point of view he should play for the titans, would reduce the incedents of this sort of thing occuring which generally pisses me off when it comes to our club.

 

[Normie]

Adam Mogg has offered to go to the Titans instead.he would probably be better then Turner anyway.

It was reported in the local rag down here in Canberra that the Raiders would take court action if Mogg went to the Titans. They released him from his contract to play over in the English SL. Would be interesting to see what would happen!

 

[Canteen Worker]

Turner agreed to play for them and renigged after Melbourne got to him.

Sorry boy - this is a Tallis,, Ian Roberts, Terry Hill, type affair. Play for the Titans or sit the length of your contract out.

 

[Crushercleal]

Verbal contracts can be upheld by the Law as a proper contract.

 

[DSM5]

Verbal contracts are not considered by courts. Try buying a house on a verbal. It seems sloppy or incompetent by Titan management not to have 'secured' his signature, so to bad for them. You can say you're going to any club and promise the world, but it's not enforcable before a court of law until you actually sign with one. Turner is on firm ground to stay with Melbourne. The NRL are on shaky ground, besides being a pack of dickheads they are scared ****less about going to court on this one.

 

[willstyles]

He's a young bloke who's ballsed this whole thing up royally.

It's pretty obvious to everyone that he should be playing for the Titans next year - he had a change of heart when Melbourne stepped up and became awesome and he held down a first-grade spot, and then they offered more cash.

I don't know what his compassionate grounds are - but if he and his woman are as tight as they are trying to say they are, then I'd like to imagine that she'd move to the Gold Coast for him.

The Titans have the upper hand no matter what though. The NRL is backing them. Storm will not win. Turner has the most to lose, and looks like he is doing his best to ruin a career that he has only JUST got back on track after years of frustrating injuries...

 

[Nutzcraw]

Why would you want to play a bloke who's heart is obviously elsewhere??

 

[Fluffy]

Verbal contracts are not considered by courts. Try buying a house on a verbal. It seems sloppy or incompetent by Titan management not to have 'secured' his signature, so to bad for them. You can say you're going to any club and promise the world, but it's not enforcable before a court of law until you actually sign with one. Turner is on firm ground to stay with Melbourne. The NRL are on shaky ground, besides being a pack of dickheads they are scared ****less about going to court on this one.

Are you a judge? If so not a very good one, maybe your the one who falls asleep in court? :stupid: :stupid:

I checked my legal team and they are considered by court as long as there is some evidence, a witness etc.

:stupid:

 

[DSM5]

Thanks for that Fluff, but I'll stick with my years on the bench. You can say what you like in front of thousands, promise the world, but nothing is legally enforcable unless there's a signature, mark or something tangible on paper, timber, whatever and witnessed and dated and then registered with the governing body. Was this done, or is the NRL attempting the bluff? Saying is one thing, doing is another, unless of course you're in Guantanamo. The Titans are complete dickheads not getting something down when the original negotiations were in play. A wooden spoon awaits.

 

[Jatz Crackers]

To say a court would not consider a verbal contract is bollocks.

A court is there to consider matters that are in dispute. This is a matter in dispute and there is evidence that can be provided by both parties to the dispute in support of their case.

What Turners advisors are banking on is that this dispute never makes it to the inside of a courtroom.

 

[Spuds Bodyguard]

Verbal Contracts are absoutely enforceable and can be upheld in court.They do not even need to prove that they actually said it just that there was an intention to enter into a contractual arrangement. It's hard to say without knowing for sure but assuming the titans had some form of draft agreement in place they would go along way to proving they had an agreement even with the absence of a contract

 

[Fluffy]

Too true jatz.

When i asked my legal team she said they had two cases in the past month or two that went down that road.

In Turners case it appears there is an acknowledgement of a verbal from both sides - if so it will most likely be upheld if it goes to court

DSM5 - the park bench just doesnt cut it

 

[Utility Player]

Forget the legal side of it he said he would play for them & when Melbourne wanted to pay him more wanted to be let off because he is only young & does not want to have to pack up his stuff for a year (quoted in today's telegraph)

Well time to learn some of lifes lessons sonny suck it up and invest in some sunscreen.

Good time to learn

 

[DSM5]

An intention to enter into a contractuaral agreement is just that, an intention. It's not a legally enforceable agreement until it's dun and dusted, signed and dated. The NRL then registers the agreement. Until that time the kid can't play, simple. The NRL does not register verbal agreements. The NRL obviously haven't got an agreement to register so there's not an enforceable agreement for Turner to play for the Titans. A lovely time to be had for all us lawyers. See you in court and bring along the bucketloads.

 

[Jatz Crackers]

An intention to enter into a contractuaral agreement is just that, an intention. It's not a legally enforceable agreement until it's dun and dusted, signed and dated. The NRL then registers the agreement. Until that time the kid can't play, simple. The NRL does not register verbal agreements. The NRL obviously haven't got an agreement to register so there's not an enforceable agreement for Turner to play for the Titans. A lovely time to be had for all us lawyers. See you in court and bring along the bucketloads.

The above is confusing the procedural aspects of the NRL with regard to contract registration. That has little to do with the legal question as to wether verbal agreements can be viewed by a court of law as evidence in a contractual dispute.

The answer is yes they can, so the proposition that you put forward DSM5, that its not legally enforceable until signature is on contract is not correct.

 

[Fluffy]

time to head back to uni DSM5