Actually that is incorrect for two reasons;

(A the offer which the Bulls would have sent would be an offer (with the terms and conditions attached) which is capable of being accepted. Whether the offeror has signed a document or not becomes irrelevant where both parties have intended to be bound aka "meeting of the minds" as per [uAdams v Lindsell[/u. The acceptance of the offer would be at the moment of dispatch applying the postal rule [uDunlop v Higgens[/u. This would be at the moment Walker had sent the contract in the specified form.

(B the Court will not determine on the "balance of probabilities", but look at the contract objectively and how a reasonable person would have, or ought to have acted in those circumstances. Furthermore the "meeting of the minds" becomes a relevant consideration for the Court - [uAdams v Lindsell [/u.

Aww, turn that frown upside down Mr Rainyface

But if a contract was signed, it had to be submitted within 48 hours. After that, we either wouldn't have been able to submit it, or else we would have faced some sort of penalty. As Orford came up months later (according to Walker's alleged signing date), his availability must be disregarded entirely from the matter.

That's to satisfy the RLF Operating Rules and, I would guess, they'd expect any contract to be signed by both parties. (And as the RFL looked in to the case we can guess that it wasn't)

As to whether a contract had in actual fact been made between the Bulls and Walker (you don't need to have signed something to have made a contract)... that would be up to a court.

it was suggested to me by a fax fan today, that if walker is convinced he had a valid contract with us then that would mean we're due a transfer fee from catalans.