With the Hoppa court case still not resolved I thought I would include a definition of a LOI from Wikipedia:
LOIs resemble short, written contracts, but are usually in tabular form and not binding on the parties in their entirety. Many LOIs, however, contain provisions that are binding, such as those governing non-disclosure, governing law, exclusivity or covenants to negotiate in good faith. An LOI may sometimes be interpreted by a court of law as binding the parties to it if it too-closely resembles a formal contract and does not contain clear disclaimers.
A letter of intent may be presented by one party to another party and subsequently negotiated before execution (or signature.) If carefully negotiated, an LOI may serve to protect both parties to a transaction. For example, a seller of a business may incorporate what is known as a non-solicitation provision, which would restrict the buyer's ability to hire an employee of the seller's business should the two parties not be able to close the transaction. On the other hand, an LOI may protect the buyer of a business by expressly conditioning its obligation to complete the transaction if is unable to secure financing for the transaction.
Common purposes of an LOI are:
- To allow parties to sketch out fundamental terms quickly before expending substantial resources on negotiating definitive agreements
- To declare officially that the parties are currently negotiating
- To provide safeguards in case a deal collapses during negotiation
- To verify certain issues regarding payments made for someone else
As stated above they are contracts but are not binding except in certain circumstances. Unless it contains CLEAR DISCLAIMERS it can be binding. We are not privy to the disclaimers in Hoppa's LOI, however it not sufficient it can become binding, and if this became the case we are screwed. We would then have a claim against the legal firm but that would not fix our cap mess. We can only hope Parra's choice of legal firm has been good!
Replies
I use it for player profiles and cross check it with rugby league player project.
Here is my take on this event without the full detail's.
If Hoppa Signed a contract, no doubt he did LOI" and parra agreed but then decided not to get it registered then the agreements is still Valid. However the get out clause for Parra is, Here is your 1 month notice as we have not actually commenced your first day of employment and the contract is not registered.
So what is Hoppa entitled to,
if he signed a 650k contract lets say, then the EEL will be settling out of court for about 60/70k.
I feel for HOPPA but he was actually a thief anyway as he was on massive overs and he should just walk as the costs will amount to more than 60-70k. It will be messy and both parties will lose out.
Hoppa needs to pull the plug and settle behind the scenes and claim personal damages of the figure I mentioned. The EELS would be happy to give him his 60k no cap issues and hoppa will no doubt get about 350k from the DOGS.
He will be out of pocket based on potential earnings for 1 year but if he signs a 1 year deal plays exceptional then he will get an upgrade the following contract.
This is where I think Hoppa knows he will never get on the gravy train again because everyone knows he will never ever be worth 500k even if he plays like he did with Manly.
Parra thought the kid was special, the only thing special was they he played in Grand Final winning team behind some of the best players in the world. Finishing was the easy part. Even back at manly he was just a fill in and never cemented 1 position. The Kid plays fullback and had he not gone walkabout for 2 years and stayed in the game, we could be having a different discussion.
I feel sorry for him, but he needs to be a man and accept he is not what his manager claims he is, " talent wise".
He is just an average 1st grader and you wont be seeing him play rep footy for NSW again unless he takes drugs and improves his speed. He has great hands and can defend but he is way too slow.
Since when does bush need a lawyer?
A few points Choo, firstly I believe that there would have been a clause in there that it is conditional on a NRL contract being signed by both parties and registered with NRL, so that didn't happen.
Secondly, if the agreement is valid, why would anyone accept a figure much lower than actual figure stated? I wouldn't and I expect you wouldn't either.
As I have stated I just hope that a good enough disclaimer is included in LOI so that it is not valid.
Probably environmental lawyers. Protecting them from deforestation.
you are such an easy trail bait.
I can comment now and like buzzard will come in.
She's certainly a screamer. HRRRAAAAAARRRRGGGGHHHH!!!
LOLL
If you're in Uni you can't use Wikipeida as a source.
-
1
-
2
of 2 Next