bigcatdiary 3,165 Posted January 6, 2013 Offered terms/contract = same thing. Interesting that Barker doesn't seem to think so. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PHILIPRISING 7,298 Posted January 6, 2013 You, probably like me when I was still earning, only have one job. The men we're talking about already have two or three jobs within the EU without working in this country. In effect, they'd be asking the court to sanction their moonlighting and that's something I can't see being tackled with any haste. But it's only opinion and we'll all know two or three years after a rider does take legal action against their parent promoter. Any bets who'll be first and when? DON'T think it is like that. They only have one job... a speedway rider. In most if not all cases they are probably registered as a business. Joe Bloggs Racing ... who sell their product (themselves) where they can ... GB, Poland, Sweden, Denmark, Germany, etc. Preventing Joe Bloggs Racing from doing business in the UK, for example, could be construed as a restraint of trade. 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
hans fan 1,001 Posted January 6, 2013 Preventing Joe Bloggs Racing from doing business in the UK, for example, could be construed as a restraint of trade. have you seen what terms are agreed between a rider and club when they sign as a asset Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Midland Robin 27 Posted January 6, 2013 Interesting that Barker doesn't seem to think so. Sorry BCD, didn't make that entirely clear. Terms and contract are effectively the same thing. But the terms have to be accepted/agreed before they become the contract. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Vincent Blachshadow 2,936 Posted January 6, 2013 Sorry BCD, didn't make that entirely clear. Terms and contract are effectively the same thing. But the terms have to be accepted/agreed before they become the contract. So, basically, 'terms' can be offered to more riders than are offered 'contracts'. Which was the point of blupanther's post which you appeared to be contradicting with your 'same thing' reply. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mini Jack 51 Posted January 6, 2013 Sorry BCD, didn't make that entirely clear. Terms and contract are effectively the same thing. But the terms have to be accepted/agreed before they become the contract. For example: Ben Barker was offered "terms" by Mick Horton but these "terms" were not formulated into a contract therefore Ben has signed nothing. Agreeing something in principle does not make it legally binding if there is no signature on the dotted line. 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Crazy robin 2,963 Posted January 7, 2013 So how will Peterborough react now Swindon have asked for permission to speak to Kenneth Bjerre as well as Hans & Troy. The plot thickens. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
hans fan 1,001 Posted January 7, 2013 So how will Peterborough react now Swindon have asked for permission to speak to Kenneth Bjerre as well as Hans & Troy. The plot thickens. they'd probaly be refused ??? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Crazy robin 2,963 Posted January 7, 2013 they'd probaly be refused ??? Then that really would be stupid & petty. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Game On 1,117 Posted January 7, 2013 Then that really would be stupid & petty. Yes but is the likely outcome Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
E I Addio 15,843 Posted January 7, 2013 For example: Ben Barker was offered "terms" by Mick Horton but these "terms" were not formulated into a contract therefore Ben has signed nothing. Agreeing something in principle does not make it legally binding if there is no signature on the dotted line. Its got nothing to do with whats in writing, its do with what is in the minds of the parties. All a written contract does is remove any doubt or confusion about the terms of the contract. As Midland Robin said terms and contract are effectively the same thing but payment has to be agreed. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BluTiger 21,692 Posted January 7, 2013 Its got nothing to do with whats in writing, its do with what is in the minds of the parties. All a written contract does is remove any doubt or confusion about the terms of the contract. As Midland Robin said terms and contract are effectively the same thing but payment has to be agreed. A written contract is legally binding, a vebal agreement is legally binding although hard to prove without a witness. A conversation about terms is not legally binding, it is negoiation. Until both parties agree on terms in writing or verbally, it is not a contract. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mini Jack 51 Posted January 7, 2013 Its got nothing to do with whats in writing, its do with what is in the minds of the parties. All a written contract does is remove any doubt or confusion about the terms of the contract. As Midland Robin said terms and contract are effectively the same thing but payment has to be agreed. Conversation may go something like: Mick: Ben, I'd like to offer you a 2013 team spot and I'm willing to offer you £xxx per point. Ben: That's great Mick, seems like a really good offer. Ben: Hi Mick, Birmingham have changed their race night and I'd very much like it if you would grant permission for me to speak with them. Mick: WHAT!!!!!! YOU SAID YOU WOULD RACE FOR COVENTRY!!! HOW VERY DARE YOU!!! YOU WILL BE IN MY TEAM FOR 2013!!! Ben: But Mick, I never signed anything?!? Mick: Doesn't matter!! You agreed terms with me, if you don't ride for me, I'm going to price you out of a deal so you can't ride for anyone and I don't care if I don't earn a loan fee for you!! See how those pesky Brummies like them apples! Live in the real world, the contract is the legally binding agreement. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
John Leslie 3,213 Posted January 7, 2013 Conversation may go something like: Or conversation may also go something like: Mick: Ben, I'd like to offer you a 2013 team spot and I'm willing to offer you £xxx per point. Ben: That's great Mick, you've got yourself a deal. Graham Drury: Ben, Good news Birmingham have changed their race night so I can get you in the team after all. Ben: Oh bugger, I've already agreed to ride for Coventry Graham Drury: Oh dear, have you actually got anything in writing? Did you sign anything? Ben: No. I just agreed it verbally. Graham Drury: OK, well just deny everything. Say you never agreed, you were just thinking about it. Of course I'm not suggesting anyone would do anything dishonest like that, but you invented a hypothetical conversation. I'm just demonstrating how easy it is to make up a different hypothetical conversation Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Barney Rabbit 727 Posted January 7, 2013 Conversation may go something like: Mick: Ben, I'd like to offer you a 2013 team spot and I'm willing to offer you £xxx per point. Ben: That's great Mick, seems like a really good offer. Ben: Hi Mick, Birmingham have changed their race night and I'd very much like it if you would grant permission for me to speak with them. Mick: WHAT!!!!!! YOU SAID YOU WOULD RACE FOR COVENTRY!!! HOW VERY DARE YOU!!! YOU WILL BE IN MY TEAM FOR 2013!!! Ben: But Mick, I never signed anything?!? Mick: Doesn't matter!! You agreed terms with me, if you don't ride for me, I'm going to price you out of a deal so you can't ride for anyone and I don't care if I don't earn a loan fee for you!! See how those pesky Brummies like them apples! Live in the real world, the contract is the legally binding agreement. Where, in your scenario, has Ben agreed to accept the offer and that he'd ride for Coventry? He only stated it seemed a good offer. If that's binding then several riders a year agree to ride for more than one club. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
