Skewball wrote:The facts are simple. It was proven in court. I'm not googling or passing making opinions on it.
I have no idea if this contract is unfair or not but the fact that they signed it is not going to be a deciding factor.
Of course it is! By signing something you are stating you have read and accepted the terms of whatever is put. So your saying whatever I have signed I don't have to legally oblige? Like my mortgage, my business contracts, my wedding certificate, kids birth certificates??????????
Not if the contract is deemed unfair or you had bad advice. Why do you think all the PPI claims are successful??. On your logic the courts would have said tough titty. They didn't. That really is the only point I am making here - The contract could come under restraint of trade (part time sport is a 'trade' in this case) . whether they signed it or not, but would have to go to court to be decided. And it would not be laughed off.
PPI was unlawful. People can make mistakes. Like I said previous these contract lawyers can make mistakes. We all do. Can you show me where 'Darts' comes under a trade? Its an activity for reward......
Booj, it would all be settled out of court. Who wants a draining, expensive court case where the likelyhood of anything positive coming out of it is slim to nothing.
PPI was mis-sold, completely invalid comparison from someone floundering
"it's the same trolls spouting the same crap every other post.... you have to be some kind of sad act to watch nearly 8 hours of darts a day for 9 days just to post about how crap it is"
Skewball wrote:The facts are simple. It was proven in court. I'm not googling or passing making opinions on it.
I have no idea if this contract is unfair or not but the fact that they signed it is not going to be a deciding factor.
Of course it is! By signing something you are stating you have read and accepted the terms of whatever is put. So your saying whatever I have signed I don't have to legally oblige? Like my mortgage, my business contracts, my wedding certificate, kids birth certificates??????????
Not if the contract is deemed unfair or you had bad advice. Why do you think all the PPI claims are successful??. On your logic the courts would have said tough titty. They didn't. That really is the only point I am making here - The contract could come under restraint of trade (part time sport is a 'trade' in this case) . whether they signed it or not, but would have to go to court to be decided. And it would not be laughed off.
PPI was unlawful. People can make mistakes. Like I said previous these contract lawyers can make mistakes. We all do. Can you show me where 'Darts' comes under a trade? Its an activity for reward......
Booj, it would all be settled out of court. Who wants a draining, expensive court case where the likelyhood of anything positive coming out of it is slim to nothing.
I would think the BDO contract is potentially unlawful, the BDO may have made a mistake, that's the whole point . (Potentially, Ian, potentially)
Losing the revenue you have earned from a darts competition would defo come under potential Restraint of Trade rules. But as you have banned me from googling it you will have to take my word Or prove otherwise...
Skewball wrote:The facts are simple. It was proven in court. I'm not googling or passing making opinions on it.
I have no idea if this contract is unfair or not but the fact that they signed it is not going to be a deciding factor.
Of course it is! By signing something you are stating you have read and accepted the terms of whatever is put. So your saying whatever I have signed I don't have to legally oblige? Like my mortgage, my business contracts, my wedding certificate, kids birth certificates??????????
Not if the contract is deemed unfair or you had bad advice. Why do you think all the PPI claims are successful??. On your logic the courts would have said tough titty. They didn't. That really is the only point I am making here - The contract could come under restraint of trade (part time sport is a 'trade' in this case) . whether they signed it or not, but would have to go to court to be decided. And it would not be laughed off.
PPI was unlawful. People can make mistakes. Like I said previous these contract lawyers can make mistakes. We all do. Can you show me where 'Darts' comes under a trade? Its an activity for reward......
Booj, it would all be settled out of court. Who wants a draining, expensive court case where the likelyhood of anything positive coming out of it is slim to nothing.
PPI was mis-sold, completely invalid comparison from someone floundering
are you again denying that if you sign a contract it cannot be overturned if restraint of trade is proven ?????? please say you are.
Seeing as it it been proved in Court otherwise....
Skewball wrote:The facts are simple. It was proven in court. I'm not googling or passing making opinions on it.
I have no idea if this contract is unfair or not but the fact that they signed it is not going to be a deciding factor.
Of course it is! By signing something you are stating you have read and accepted the terms of whatever is put. So your saying whatever I have signed I don't have to legally oblige? Like my mortgage, my business contracts, my wedding certificate, kids birth certificates??????????
Not if the contract is deemed unfair or you had bad advice. Why do you think all the PPI claims are successful??. On your logic the courts would have said tough titty. They didn't. That really is the only point I am making here - The contract could come under restraint of trade (part time sport is a 'trade' in this case) . whether they signed it or not, but would have to go to court to be decided. And it would not be laughed off.
PPI was unlawful. People can make mistakes. Like I said previous these contract lawyers can make mistakes. We all do. Can you show me where 'Darts' comes under a trade? Its an activity for reward......
Booj, it would all be settled out of court. Who wants a draining, expensive court case where the likelyhood of anything positive coming out of it is slim to nothing.
Skewball wrote:The facts are simple. It was proven in court. I'm not googling or passing making opinions on it.
I have no idea if this contract is unfair or not but the fact that they signed it is not going to be a deciding factor.
Of course it is! By signing something you are stating you have read and accepted the terms of whatever is put. So your saying whatever I have signed I don't have to legally oblige? Like my mortgage, my business contracts, my wedding certificate, kids birth certificates??????????
Not if the contract is deemed unfair or you had bad advice. Why do you think all the PPI claims are successful??. On your logic the courts would have said tough titty. They didn't. That really is the only point I am making here - The contract could come under restraint of trade (part time sport is a 'trade' in this case) . whether they signed it or not, but would have to go to court to be decided. And it would not be laughed off.
PPI was unlawful. People can make mistakes. Like I said previous these contract lawyers can make mistakes. We all do. Can you show me where 'Darts' comes under a trade? Its an activity for reward......
Booj, it would all be settled out of court. Who wants a draining, expensive court case where the likelyhood of anything positive coming out of it is slim to nothing.
I would think the BDO contract is potentially unlawful, the BDO may have made a mistake, that's the whole point . (Potentially, Ian, potentially)
Losing the revenue you have earned from a darts competition would defo come under potential Restraint of Trade rules. But as you have banned me from googling it you will have to take my word Or prove otherwise...
How is it unlawful? I'm pretty sure the prize money for lakeside would be paid on completion of the contract. Like if I didnt fulfil my work contract, would I be expected to be paid?
Skewball wrote:The facts are simple. It was proven in court. I'm not googling or passing making opinions on it.
I have no idea if this contract is unfair or not but the fact that they signed it is not going to be a deciding factor.
Of course it is! By signing something you are stating you have read and accepted the terms of whatever is put. So your saying whatever I have signed I don't have to legally oblige? Like my mortgage, my business contracts, my wedding certificate, kids birth certificates??????????
Not if the contract is deemed unfair or you had bad advice. Why do you think all the PPI claims are successful??. On your logic the courts would have said tough titty. They didn't. That really is the only point I am making here - The contract could come under restraint of trade (part time sport is a 'trade' in this case) . whether they signed it or not, but would have to go to court to be decided. And it would not be laughed off.
PPI was unlawful. People can make mistakes. Like I said previous these contract lawyers can make mistakes. We all do. Can you show me where 'Darts' comes under a trade? Its an activity for reward......
Booj, it would all be settled out of court. Who wants a draining, expensive court case where the likelyhood of anything positive coming out of it is slim to nothing.
It is not nessecarily about making mistakes. As I pointed out overleaf; these cases are rarely black and white and it's often about how the law is interpreted. One judge can interpret the same law differently to another and often they do. That is why precedent is so important. You could put the best contract solicitor in the world on it and there would still be no guarantee of staying on the right side of the law.
Skewball wrote:The facts are simple. It was proven in court. I'm not googling or passing making opinions on it.
I have no idea if this contract is unfair or not but the fact that they signed it is not going to be a deciding factor.
Of course it is! By signing something you are stating you have read and accepted the terms of whatever is put. So your saying whatever I have signed I don't have to legally oblige? Like my mortgage, my business contracts, my wedding certificate, kids birth certificates??????????
Not if the contract is deemed unfair or you had bad advice. Why do you think all the PPI claims are successful??. On your logic the courts would have said tough titty. They didn't. That really is the only point I am making here - The contract could come under restraint of trade (part time sport is a 'trade' in this case) . whether they signed it or not, but would have to go to court to be decided. And it would not be laughed off.
PPI was unlawful. People can make mistakes. Like I said previous these contract lawyers can make mistakes. We all do. Can you show me where 'Darts' comes under a trade? Its an activity for reward......
Booj, it would all be settled out of court. Who wants a draining, expensive court case where the likelyhood of anything positive coming out of it is slim to nothing.
Do people in the BDO pay tax on their winnings?
They should
"it's the same trolls spouting the same crap every other post.... you have to be some kind of sad act to watch nearly 8 hours of darts a day for 9 days just to post about how crap it is"
Tim Tricker wrote:
Of course it is! By signing something you are stating you have read and accepted the terms of whatever is put. So your saying whatever I have signed I don't have to legally oblige? Like my mortgage, my business contracts, my wedding certificate, kids birth certificates??????????
Not if the contract is deemed unfair or you had bad advice. Why do you think all the PPI claims are successful??. On your logic the courts would have said tough titty. They didn't. That really is the only point I am making here - The contract could come under restraint of trade (part time sport is a 'trade' in this case) . whether they signed it or not, but would have to go to court to be decided. And it would not be laughed off.
PPI was unlawful. People can make mistakes. Like I said previous these contract lawyers can make mistakes. We all do. Can you show me where 'Darts' comes under a trade? Its an activity for reward......
Booj, it would all be settled out of court. Who wants a draining, expensive court case where the likelyhood of anything positive coming out of it is slim to nothing.
I've been sent some more court judgements by my brother relating to Sport and Restraint of Trade , fascinating stuff actually and makes me think even more that the clauses in the contract are on very very thin ground. But sadly, we dont have a copy and its unlikely to be tested in Court.
Skewball wrote:I've been sent some more court judgements by my brother relating to Sport and Restraint of Trade , fascinating stuff actually and makes me think even more that the clauses in the contract are on very very thin ground. But sadly, we dont have a copy and its unlikely to be tested in Court.
Do you mind sending me them on Facebook chap, I would like to have a gander at them.
Skewball wrote:I've been sent some more court judgements by my brother relating to Sport and Restraint of Trade , fascinating stuff actually and makes me think even more that the clauses in the contract are on very very thin ground. But sadly, we dont have a copy and its unlikely to be tested in Court.
Do you mind sending me them on Facebook chap, I would like to have a gander at them.
Skewball wrote:I've been sent some more court judgements by my brother relating to Sport and Restraint of Trade , fascinating stuff actually and makes me think even more that the clauses in the contract are on very very thin ground. But sadly, we dont have a copy and its unlikely to be tested in Court.
Barry Hearn has advised people to take it to court. I would imagine he knows a thing or two about sporting contracts. Regardless it will only be decided by testing it in a court of law; not on here. I must say I am surprised at the argument that signing something has an effect on whether the terms and conditions contained therein are legal and enforceable. It absolutely doesn't; your signature is irrelevant.
Skewball wrote:I've been sent some more court judgements by my brother relating to Sport and Restraint of Trade , fascinating stuff actually and makes me think even more that the clauses in the contract are on very very thin ground. But sadly, we dont have a copy and its unlikely to be tested in Court.
Barry Hearn has advised people to take it to court. I would imagine he knows a thing or two about sporting contracts. Regardless it will only be decided by testing it in a court of law; not on here. I must say I am surprised at the argument that signing something has an effect on whether the terms and conditions contained therein are legal and enforceable. It absolutely doesn't; your signature is irrelevant.
I would hazard a guess he might know a little, but his legal team know a lot more! Also if he was confident, why don't he stump up or use his legal resources to help out? If hes confident, surely he can get the costs back......(and yes I know, not all costs can/will be awarded)
Also need to read up on 'Restrictive Covenants' as that it more than likely the form of clause that the BDO have used.
And the general guidance is that they are void for being in restraint of trade unless.....
the employer can
demonstrate that:
• It has a legitimate proprietary interest to protect
• The protection sought goes no further than is reasonable having regard to the interest of the parties
and the public interest.
Skewball wrote:I've been sent some more court judgements by my brother relating to Sport and Restraint of Trade , fascinating stuff actually and makes me think even more that the clauses in the contract are on very very thin ground. But sadly, we dont have a copy and its unlikely to be tested in Court.
Barry Hearn has advised people to take it to court. I would imagine he knows a thing or two about sporting contracts. Regardless it will only be decided by testing it in a court of law; not on here. I must say I am surprised at the argument that signing something has an effect on whether the terms and conditions contained therein are legal and enforceable. It absolutely doesn't; your signature is irrelevant.
You'd think so considering he lost a court case on that very thing to Steve Collins
"it's the same trolls spouting the same crap every other post.... you have to be some kind of sad act to watch nearly 8 hours of darts a day for 9 days just to post about how crap it is"
Skewball wrote:I've been sent some more court judgements by my brother relating to Sport and Restraint of Trade , fascinating stuff actually and makes me think even more that the clauses in the contract are on very very thin ground. But sadly, we dont have a copy and its unlikely to be tested in Court.
Barry Hearn has advised people to take it to court. I would imagine he knows a thing or two about sporting contracts. Regardless it will only be decided by testing it in a court of law; not on here. I must say I am surprised at the argument that signing something has an effect on whether the terms and conditions contained therein are legal and enforceable. It absolutely doesn't; your signature is irrelevant.
You'd think so considering he lost a court case on that very thing to Steve Collins
There are multiple examples; boxing is rife with it. As is the music business. I think the BDO is safe enough with the contract purely because the likelihood of it being tested in court is so slim. I can't see anyone going to Q School, walking away from thousands of pounds with the intention of taking the BDO to court. And by the time they cash the cheque it is too late to join the PDC by that stage meaning they have no choice but to continue in the BDO. This is the dilemma Glenn is faced with and it really isn't very fair.
Skewball wrote:I've been sent some more court judgements by my brother relating to Sport and Restraint of Trade , fascinating stuff actually and makes me think even more that the clauses in the contract are on very very thin ground. But sadly, we dont have a copy and its unlikely to be tested in Court.
Barry Hearn has advised people to take it to court. I would imagine he knows a thing or two about sporting contracts. Regardless it will only be decided by testing it in a court of law; not on here. I must say I am surprised at the argument that signing something has an effect on whether the terms and conditions contained therein are legal and enforceable. It absolutely doesn't; your signature is irrelevant.
You'd think so considering he lost a court case on that very thing to Steve Collins
There are multiple examples; boxing is rife with it. As is the music business. I think the BDO is safe enough with the contract purely because the likelihood of it being tested in court is so slim. I can't see anyone going to Q School, walking away from thousands of pounds with the intention of taking the BDO to court. And by the time they cash the cheque it is too late to join the PDC by that stage meaning they have no choice but to continue in the BDO. This is the dilemma Glenn is faced with and it really isn't very fair.
indeed.
I would just love for the player to do a Hankey again. That is the way to fight it,
Paddy McGinty wrote:Play by the rules, if you sign a contract, honour it, simples.
Even when that contract is potentially exploitative or illegal?
Anyway - back on thread. Surelyn Vasos calling Glenn 'Dead Eye Durrant' is a howler? FFS the guy clearly has problems with muscle control in his face and he calls him that? Idiot.
. (Potentially, Ian, potentially)
Or prove otherwise...
