David Mellor, Carl Winchester, James Tarkowski, Kirk Miller, Alex Cisak

[BP1960]

IIRC Everton lost out on compensation for Dan Gosling when his contract expired because he didn't receive a written contract offer until too late. I hope, Cisak aside, we haven't fallen into the same trap with these players.

 

"A verbal contract isn't worth the paper it's written on"

Samuel Goldwyn

[stevesidg]

 

 

"A verbal contract isn't worth the paper it's written on"

Samuel Goldwyn

 

So they say

[pk200]

i was always lead to believe that a verbal contract is binding.

[jsslatic]

i was always lead to believe that a verbal contract is binding.

 

If terms are offered and there is unequivocal and absolute acceptance of that exact offer then it will be.

[Harry Dowds Green Shirt]

i was always lead to believe that a verbal contract is binding.

 

I think you'll find it's not worth the paper it's (not) written on

[Stevie_J]

i was always lead to believe that a verbal contract is binding.

It is, legally. The point is that it's very difficult to prove such a contract was entered into if one of the parties denies it was ever entered into.

[Stevie_J]

 

 

If terms are offered and there is unequivocal and absolute acceptance of that exact offer then it will be.

It's exactly the same as a written contract. If there's an offer, acceptance of that offer, an intention by the parties to be legally bound and consideration (a promise given or burden assumed by each of the parties) then it's a legally binding contract, regardless of whether it's verbal or written.

[Harry Dowds Green Shirt]

It's exactly the same as a written contract. If there's an offer, acceptance of that offer, an intention by the parties to be legally bound and consideration (a promise given or burden assumed by each of the parties) then it's a legally binding contract, regardless of whether it's verbal or written.

 

Just 1 thing to say to that unless you've got it in writing or on tape you'll never prove it hence my previous post.

 

Back on topic taking your point into account, a verbal offer was made but it takes both parties to sign the contract to make it valid and binding

[Stevie_J]

 

 

Just 1 thing to say to that unless you've got it in writing or on tape you'll never prove it hence my previous post.

 

Back on topic taking your point into account, a verbal offer was made but it takes both parties to sign the contract to make it valid and binding

I made the point about the difficulty of proving the existence of a verbal contract above.

 

There has to be acceptance, not a signature; they're not necessarily the same thing.

[Matt]

 

It's exactly the same as a written contract. If there's an offer, acceptance of that offer, an intention by the parties to be legally bound and consideration (a promise given or burden assumed by each of the parties) then it's a legally binding contract, regardless of whether it's verbal or written.

 

Is that an implied contract?

[laticdickovarmy]

Not sure it can be leagally binding. I remember when we lost cashley cole to Chelsea. Verbally offered 80,000 then we drew up his contract at 70,000. He refused to sign it when to a hotel in Kensington met Chelsea reps and signed for them

[opinions4u]

Not sure it can be leagally binding. I remember when we lost cashley cole to Chelsea. Verbally offered 80,000 then we drew up his contract at 70,000. He refused to sign it when to a hotel in Kensington met Chelsea reps and signed for them

 

It is legally binding if both parties agree to it.

 

As stated above, the difficulty comes when one party to the contract denies having agreed to it. Proving what was said is rather difficult. As every argument with Mrs o4u proves.

 

So in the absence of a signed document a court will find it very difficult to uphold a verbal contract.

 

There is an added issue with football. I believe the clubs have to provide details of contracts to the football authorities. So while contract law doesn't require a written document, football does.

 

In the case of any Latics negotiation I would expect the spoken word to establish the headlines (wage, length) and a document to be dawn up to confirm this and clarify other employment issues like perks, pensions, disciplinary latitude etc.

[Stevie_J]

 

 

Is that an implied contract?

Not quite, Matt. That would be where a court would imply that the above criteria has been met on the basis of performance, with no verbal or written agreement having been made. The actions of the parties give rise to an implied contract, where it would be unfair on either of the parties for that 'contract' not to be fulfilled.

[Lags]

Not quite, Matt. That would be where a court would imply that the above criteria has been met on the basis of performance, with no verbal or written agreement having been made. The actions of the parties give rise to an implied contract, where it would be unfair on either of the parties for that 'contract' not to be fulfilled.

 

Who said the law was black and white? seems there's more grey than anything!

[Matt]

Not quite, Matt. That would be where a court would imply that the above criteria has been met on the basis of performance, with no verbal or written agreement having been made. The actions of the parties give rise to an implied contract, where it would be unfair on either of the parties for that 'contract' not to be fulfilled.

 

Blimey. Cheers. And who said that the only thing law-types could say was ':censored: you' in latin.

[LaticsPete]

 

 

Blimey. Cheers. And who said that the only thing law-types could say was ':censored: you' in latin.

 

Futete