Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="subsbligh, post: 2547716, member: 1950"] Dam I wish we could see the wording of the Halo termination clause. It must be more like: "Milford may seek a termination of this contract, subject to agreement by the Raiders, if Halo is sick", as opposed to "Milford may terminate this agreement on notice if Halo is sick". Even in the case of the former, you'd have to argue there is an implied term for the Raiders (and for that matter Milford) to act in good faith when giving or not giving consent to a release. So if they don't consent, Milford really has only the option to allege they are acting in bad faith or unreasonably withholding their consent. In the alternative, if he simply walks away and repudiates the contract, the Court would have to look at the restraint of trade clause that would prevent him from playing for another club during 2014. All agreements in restraint of trade are prima facie void unless they are reasonable in the interest of the parties, the onus on the Raiders to prove it's reasonable. You'd have to think, taken in light of the Raiders potentially acting in bad faith about the termination clause, proving the restraint of trade is reasonable to protect their legitimate interests would be a difficult hurdle for the Raiders to overcome. I think before it goes to Court the NRL would step in to mediate... Who knows what happens then. No doubt they'd take the "what's best for the interests of all involved, which probably leans towards the clubs' rights of enforceability of contracts. If they take Milford's side, you set a pretty heavy precedent. [/QUOTE]

Verification

Active Now

No members online now.

Total: 175 (members: 0, guests: 175)

Reply to thread

Log in

Active Now