Perhaps this is no different to gazumping in the property market. Until something is down on paper and signed, the property owner, in this case the contract owner, can still do as he or she pleases.
I know everybody has decided I made everything up, and this is proof, but I did say about 15 times that Naughton can sign for Spurs, and if he did then we have no recourse whatsoever. Didn't I? And I stated in my reasoning for why Sheff Utd would use delaying tactics that this is significantly more likely than them being fined by the FA. Didn't I?
I quote the above thing because this is the point: there is a specific law that says oral agreements don't count for land and property. That is necessary, because all other oral contracts are binding. The only place gazumping exists is in the property market, and that's the reason why: there is a specific cut out in law for it. I won't provide a link because I'll get mocked for it, but do the legwork yourself.
I did say to Nebbiolo in a PM what my job is (I'm a corporate tax advisor, which is all tort cases ), but as I said to him, I prefer to try to explain things. However, I explained why, a legal professional agreed that the oral contract is binding, and I provided a link backing up (which cites proper links). I'm not sure what else I can provide.
Davek is mocking me for providing a link, and he also mocked me for using legal language. Could somebody please suggest a way of showing what the law says that doesn't involve either quoting the law or providing a link?
Apparently providing a link was a mistake. Rather than provide evidence, it's better to say I reckon I reckon I reckon, right? Evidence is overrated, wild speculation is where logic is at now. "I reckon this is like gazumping. Prove me wrong, without quoting either the law or providing a link."
The ability of some people on this board to follow an argument is pretty funny to be honest. I say that if the player wants to sign for Everton, he can do, if he waits it out. I also say he can sign for Spurs at any point. The player signs for Spurs. Everybody concludes that oral contracts aren't binding.
It kind of reminds me of Creationists, who believe the Earth is 6000 years old and evolution is a myth. Essentially their tactic is to ask scientists more and more questions, until inevitably the scientist reaches a stage where he can't 100% prove an answer. The creationist then concludes in the absence of proof that the creationism must be true as science can't provide all the answers. The burdon of proof lies totally with science, in their view.
I'm in a bad mood because we lost out on a player who looked decent, so sorry for the rant, but seriously some people need to learn how logic works.