Steve Turner?

[Davo23]

Doesn't Rogers have a contract with the ARU?

Surely he hasn't been coerced by the fatboy to come to the Gold Coast.

After all, a contract is a contract.

Ha ha, nice one, Lidge.

Perhaps Rogers only had a verbal contract - they are not worth the paper they are written on


Davo23

 

[POBT]

The outstanding legal minds continue their analysis of contract law.

Mutually agreed termination of contract. Exactly what Turner needs to play for Melbourne next year.

 

[Davo23]

The outstanding legal minds continue their analysis of contract law.

Mutually agreed termination of contract. Exactly what Turner needs to play for Melbourne next year.

How about a contract void for uncertainty?

Put that in your Ellinghaus, "Australian Cases on Contract" & smoke it



Davo23

 

[POBT]

How about a contract void for uncertainty?

Put that in your Ellinghaus, "Australian Cases on Contract" & smoke it



Davo23

And yet Turner's manager has admitted that the terms were clearly set out and agreed to in an exchange of emails. This is going over the same ground that has been covered about 20 times on this board. Agreement is effective. As soon as Riolo admitted that the terms had been agreed, Turner's stand became tenuous. He now needs the agreement of the Titans to terminate the contract. When this mess is sorted out (which it will be), I guarantee that a document will be drafted and signed that is effectively a mutual release/termination of contract. You wouldn't need to do that if there was no contract in the first place.

I did 1st year contract law too. It is not that complicated. Incidentally, there is another possible ground in employment law that Turner could use to escape from the Titans agreement but that would still expose him to a damages claim by the Titans.

 

[Davo23]

And yet Turner's manager has admitted that the terms were clearly set out and agreed to in an exchange of emails. This is going over the same ground that has been covered about 20 times on this board. Agreement is effective. As soon as Riolo admitted that the terms had been agreed, Turner's stand became tenuous. He now needs the agreement of the Titans to terminate the contract. When this mess is sorted out (which it will be), I guarantee that a document will be drafted and signed that is effectively a mutual release/termination of contract. You wouldn't need to do that if there was no contract in the first place.

I did 1st year contract law too. It is not that complicated. Incidentally, there is another possible ground in employment law that Turner could use to escape from the Titans agreement but that would still expose him to a damages claim by the Titans.

So, you are saying that a couple of e-mails and a handshake (a metaphorical one) substitute for a 24 page contract?

And those same e-mails contain all of the terms of Turner's contract?

I'd back the Trade Practices Act and the Fair Trading Act (Vic) against any enforcement of that contract!

See you in the Federal Court.


Davo23

 

[POBT]

What aspect of the TPA/FTA applies? Surely it can't be unconscionable conduct. Turner had his manager negotiate so it is not as though he is disadvantaged.

The exchange of emails doesn't need to have contained ALL of the terms. The key terms must be sufficiently clear. The NRL uses standard contract conditions. There are only a few variations between contracts. Provided the key terms going to the heart of the contract are sorted out, then certainty will not be an issue.

I have no interest in this beyond a professional interest. I have also spoken to fairly decent legal minds about the situation. The only avenue available to Turner is on the basis that the contract is still essentially a contract of employment IMO (although some would argue that it is not). You cannot force someone to work against their will. That is the argumentTurner can and should run. As I said though, that will expose him to a damages claim.

 

[Davo23]

What aspect of the TPA/FTA applies? Surely it can't be unconscionable conduct. Turner had his manager negotiate so it is not as though he is disadvantaged.

The exchange of emails doesn't need to have contained ALL of the terms. The key terms must be sufficiently clear. The NRL uses standard contract conditions. There are only a few variations between contracts. Provided the key terms going to the heart of the contract are sorted out, then certainty will not be an issue.

I have no interest in this beyond a professional interest. I have also spoken to fairly decent legal minds about the situation. The only avenue available to Turner is on the basis that the contract is still essentially a contract of employment IMO (although some would argue that it is not). You cannot force someone to work against their will. That is the argumentTurner can and should run. As I said though, that will expose him to a damages claim.

POBT, I think both of us are in the dark, unless we know what was in those e-mails. The failure to prepare and execute the Contract may be fatal, or it may still allow some remedy to the Titans.

I agree with your summation of his employment position, but the NRL is wary of actions under the TPA, having had their attempt at a Draft struck down by the Federal Court. With no written contract, I would still back Turner against a damages claim.

And, I did first year Contract law, but that was more than 15 years ago - I do not worry about what the academics say in their texts - get them out in the real world to understand what contracts are about, I say


Davo23

 

[Grantwhy]

So, you are saying that a couple of e-mails and a handshake (a metaphorical one) substitute for a 24 page contract?

If those e-mails and (metaphorical) handshake were based on agreeing to the 24 page contract, then quite probably yes.

The traveling to the Gold Coast and telling the media how happy he was to be playing there in 2007 also suggest that Turner considered it to do so.

And those same e-mails contain all of the terms of Turner's contract?

If Turner already had a copy of the contract would the e-mails need to contain that?

 

[POBT]

POBT, I think both of us are in the dark, unless we know what was in those e-mails. The failure to prepare and execute the Contract may be fatal, or it may still allow some remedy to the Titans.

True. Although Riolo has been fairly open in saying that the deal had been done.

I agree with your summation of his employment position, but the NRL is wary of actions under the TPA, having had their attempt at a Draft struck down by the Federal Court. With no written contract, I would still back Turner against a damages claim.

The internal draft was found to be illegal in Adamson & Ors v NSWRL based on the common law on restraint of trade. The TPA action under s4D did not succeed because it required the satisfaction of a "purpose" test - the players could not prove that test. In the Turner case, the league would be similarly protected. The "purpose" of any refusal by the NRL to register Turner's Storm contract would not be to restrict Turner from plying his trade - it would be to recognise that the Titans contract was effective. The League has no fear of a possible TPA action. Even a common law restraint of trade action would be extremely unlikely to succeed.

get them out in the real world to understand what contracts are about, I say

Exactly. I would never advise a client to litigate on an oral contract. However, I have been part of litigation (won on settlement) on an unsigned contract settled by the parties' lawyers in correspondence. In that case, each party had acted (for a time) as though the contract had been fully executed. Similar to Turner getting on the radio and telling the world how much he was looking forward to playing for the Titans.

There are two issues here:

1. Does a valid contract exist based on oral agreement and email correspondence?

2. If yes, does Turner have any other recourse to avoid the contract?

He'll struggle on 1 and, as I said, his only recourse at #2 IMO is that he can't be forced to work for someone he doesn't want to work for.

 

[Dave The Man]

Titans are bing BLoody Selfish!

 

[Ancient and Loyal]

Titans are bing BLoody Selfish!

Why? They've offered terms. Two Youngsters in exchange for turners. Most of Melbournes Juniors come from places like Marsden High anyway, which is practically Titans territory.

Maybe the Storm shouldn't have tried to have got an agreement out of a player contractually bound to play for another club in the first place? Pretty selfish act right there.

 

[Philhawk]

Why? They've offered terms. Two Youngsters in exchange for turners. Most of Melbournes Juniors come from places like Marsden High anyway, which is practically Titans territory.

Brilliant reasoning. Let's just turn over the Storms books and give the Titans all our juniors because they come from there. Why dont you indicate the club you support and lets critically analyze the demographical background of their juniors.

Maybe the Storm shouldn't have tried to have got an agreement out of a player contractually bound to play for another club in the first place? Pretty selfish act right there.

Not really. What's selfish is a club willing to see the end of a players career just because they're trying to take a 'firm stance' with their being a new franchise.

 

[Ancient and Loyal]

Brilliant reasoning. Let's just turn over the Storms books and give the Titans all our juniors because they come from there. Why dont you indicate the club you support and lets critically analyze the demographical background of their juniors.

Hey, I'm just treating this argument as seriously as some Storm fans are...Who fail to understand the basics of contract law, despite it being repeatedly spelt out to them again and again...and again.

Wigan. Our fine town exports juniors across the Super League.

The agreement is fair. You get Steve Turner back, The Titans get two young prospects who may or may not fire in future years. It's not like the Storm will be giving the Titans Israel Folau if they agree to these terms. More probably some of the lesser lights from thier development system.

Atleast the Storm will likely get to choose the two players, unlike the Titans who've simply had a player stolen from them.

Not really. What's selfish is a club willing to see the end of a players career just because they're trying to take a 'firm stance' with their being a new franchise.

Why? Guess what, the Gold Coast Franchise (Just like any other club) is bigger than any one player. Again, Melbourne was selfish in the way it acted. I doubt the club lawyer was so dense as to not realise Turner had an effective agreement with the Titans, and since paperwork would have come through him, the Storm would have known full well what they were doing. It's clear Waldron just expected the Titans to roll over and take it from behind while the Storm stole a player.

Don't pretend the act wasn't selfish. It was theft, which in my books is selfish.

 

[Philhawk]

Look to be honest, I dont like the going-ons as much as the next Storm fan. I think we could have handled this whole scenario alot better and not complicated matters by merely talking the 'mature' ground and did what the Waratahs did for Rogers.

I hope this is all resolved by the New Year.

 

[POBT]

Why did Turner agree to play for the Titans?

1. The opportunity to play regular first grade instead of being a fringe player.
2. The first shot at his favourite full back position.
3. More money
4. Longer contract.

Why did Turner change his mind?

1. He secured a 1st grade spot with Melbourne.
2. He played in a grand final with them.
3. Melbourne offered him more money.
4. He and his girlfriend didn't want to move anymore.

If an allegation of selfishness is going to be levelled at anyone, I don't think poor little Stevie should escape.

 

[Dave The Man]

Why did Turner agree to play for the Titans?

1. The opportunity to play regular first grade instead of being a fringe player.
2. The first shot at his favourite full back position.
3. More money
4. Longer contract.

Why did Turner change his mind?

1. He secured a 1st grade spot with Melbourne.
2. He played in a grand final with them.
3. Melbourne offered him more money.
4. He and his girlfriend didn't want to move anymore.

If an allegation of selfishness is going to be levelled at anyone, I don't think poor little Stevie should escape.

Bull******** - Players have been released for the same Reason!

 

[Dave The Man]

Look to be honest, I dont like the going-ons as much as the next Storm fan. I think we could have handled this whole scenario alot better and not complicated matters by merely talking the 'mature' ground and did what the Waratahs did for Rogers.

I hope this is all resolved by the New Year.

We Could Steal Rogers Under the Titans Eyes!

 

[jefffff34]

We Could Steal Rogers Under the Titans Eyes!

I can hear Baby Jesus crying.

 

[Warwick]

We Could Steal Rogers Under the Titans Eyes!

Not familiar with the tune, but sing a few bars so i can pick up the melody.

 

[Davo23]

Why did Turner agree to play for the Titans?

1. The opportunity to play regular first grade instead of being a fringe player.
2. The first shot at his favourite full back position.
3. More money
4. Longer contract.

Why did Turner change his mind?

1. He secured a 1st grade spot with Melbourne.
2. He played in a grand final with them.
3. Melbourne offered him more money.
4. He and his girlfriend didn't want to move anymore.

If an allegation of selfishness is going to be levelled at anyone, I don't think poor little Stevie should escape.

Are these facts, POBT?

It's best not to assume that media reports and posturing by Club Directors, player/managers and the like contain anything but a healthy spin; or more importantly, contain any statements which are supported by evidence.

I cannot see how any lawyer can draw conclusions on what is in the Media.


Davo23



And, anyway, he never got "his favourite full back position".

 

[Davo23]

Hey, I'm just treating this argument as seriously as some Storm fans are...Who fail to understand the basics of contract law, despite it being repeatedly spelt out to them again and again...and again.

And what's your considered opinion on Contract Law, A & L?

I must have missed your submission ...


Davo23

 

[POBT]

Are these facts, POBT?

The only statement that is not yet established fact is that Melbourne offered him more money. But they did - the money Melbourne was talking before Turner signed with the Titans was less than what Melbourne ultimately offered to pay him. That makes absolute sense - Turner went from being a fringe player to an established player and so of course Melbourne would have been willing to offer him more money.

But the point remains - surely you can't miss ludicrousness of someone accusing the Titans of being selfish when Turner isn't exactly acting with the most altruistic intent.

It's best not to assume that media reports and posturing by Club Directors, player/managers and the like contain anything but a healthy spin; or more importantly, contain any statements which are supported by evidence.

It is not that difficult to separate fact from spin. You don't need to be a lawyer to do so, despite your heightened opinion of the legal fraternity.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

Good to see the Titans not changing their mind! The offer is there from the titans- 2 youngsters for Turner, or he sits out 3 years, pretty simple really!

 

[Davo23]

It is not that difficult to separate fact from spin. You don't need to be a lawyer to do so, despite your heightened opinion of the legal fraternity.

It's not my opinion of the legal fraternity that is the moot point.

It is the fact that you have based your conclusions on media stories. Wait until you hear the evidence in the box, and then decide.


Davo23

 

[Dave The Man]

Anthing latley about this?