Also from twitter...

"@lukeodwyer mate i don't know, my legal team is on 2 it, so it's a waiting game."

I'm getting worried now. Would have preferred to see a 'Walker is talking Bull' line from the club instead of the non commital no comment

www.leaguehq.com.au/news/lhqnews ... 82719.html Looks bad for us - even if Walker has no leg to stand on it does not send a good message to future potential signings. I am surprised Hood acted in this way (if true), just shows the determination to improve the team at all costs after this poor season.

www.leaguehq.com.au/news/lhqnews ... 82719.html Looks bad for us - even if Walker has no leg to stand on it does not send a good message to future potential signings. I am surprised Hood acted in this way (if true), just shows the determination to improve the team at all costs after this poor season.

The only one talking about a contract being in place appears to be "Walkout"

Orr simply keeps reiterating the LOI being in place.

Strikes me that there's a BIG doubt whether an agreed contract was ever agreed / in place - why would the Bulls tell Orr they "weren't going ahead" if there was a contract / why wouldn't Orr be whining like an Ozzie (oh, hang on. . . ..

) about breach of contract?

Not an ideal way for the Bulls to do business, however, that's exactly what it is - business. No contract / no qualms. LOI is simply that.

Orr / Walker would appear to be simply feeling hard done to . . . . and seeking some financial recompense. I reckon Walker ought to be chasing that from Orr . . . . .

Another video interview with Walker www.foxsports.com.au/league/vide ... 10,00.html Doesn't paint Walker in the most sympathetic light, I felt he came across as a bit of a money-grubber. I'm a little surprised though that he said both the NSW and Gold Coast police had told him he was fine for the visa, it's not their call at all.

Another video interview with Walker www.foxsports.com.au/league/vide ... 10,00.html Doesn't paint Walker in the most sympathetic light, I felt he came across as a bit of a money-grubber. I'm a little surprised though that he said both the NSW and Gold Coast police had told him he was fine for the visa, it's not their call at all.

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.

My legal experience is rusty, so forgive me if I'm barking up the wrong tree here, but Adams v Lindsell is primarily about contract dates with relation to the post, isn't it? In that case, both parties had signed the contract in question, but the issue came down to whether the contract was in force from the time the letter was posted or when it was received. Technology has changed somewhat since 1818, nowadays it's quite simple to fax/email a scan of the completed contract as confimation that it's been signed, or to phone (none of which were available in 181icon_cool.gif to confirm that it had been accepted.

Dunlop v Higgins on the other hand deals with the event that the signed contract never arrives through the loss of the post. In this case, again no-one has confirmed that the contract was actually signed by both parties. If it's the signing that's being disputed, as opposed to the sign contract arriving, neither precedent would be relevant.

I want to know if he's had this offer since August and it had been "signed" why hadn't the club announced that we'd signed him?

Hood denied we were in for him, which is obviously garbage. However, why was he denying it?

Was he not wanting someone else to come in and up the ante as it hadn't been signed - or did we have wind of Orford at that point and he was hoping that Walker would get a better offer elsewhere.

I'm also interested to know whether we have applied for a visa for Walker. If his previous history is to go by and the experiences of other clubs in getting players over, I'd of thought we'd of applied ASAP as there could have been an issue. Glenn Halls was rejected due to a minor technicality, so someone like Walker who at the sounds of it has not been 100% perfect in the eyes of the law may have had trouble obtaining one.

At the sounds of it we've not tried to register him with the RFL either.

Personally I think he (Walker) has been hanging on to see if he could get a better deal elsewhere, we've taking the hump with him and had the opportunity to sign someone else and gone for that instead.

At this point he and his agent have realised they've made a boo-boo and are busy trying to kick up a fuss and get some cash out of it as he'll now have to accept a smaller contract elsewhwere as they got all the timings wrong.

Would be interesting to know from Walker if he's got any flights booked to the UK to come for pre-season! Or what date he thought he'd be coming. The rest of the new players are over by the ned of November I think.

The operating rules are clear... if the Bulls believed there to be a contract with the player they would have to notify the RFL and send tham a copy of the contract within 48 hours. If that had been done then the Bulls would not be able to say that a contract did not exist.

Clearly the Bulls did not believe there to be a contract in place. That leaves us with a LOI, a paper (?) contract sent to Walker, signed by him and returned to the club. What we are missing is whatever instruction accompanied the contract, (e.g. which could be something like "Please find enclosed a copy of the contract that you will be required to sign and return to the *employer* in the event that both parties wish to procede in this matter"icon_wink.gif

"No worry for Bulls" according to this: www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/s ... for_Bulls/ Peter Hood: Quote “I was unaware of the comments made by Chris Walker’s manager as I have been away at the Super League convention. “I have absolutely no comment to make on those matters. We made an announcement about Matt Orford’s signing on Monday and there’s nothing more to add to that.” '" Mmmm, fairly non-commital.

"No worry for Bulls" according to this: www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/s ... for_Bulls/ Peter Hood: Quote “I was unaware of the comments made by Chris Walker’s manager as I have been away at the Super League convention. “I have absolutely no comment to make on those matters. We made an announcement about Matt Orford’s signing on Monday and there’s nothing more to add to that.” '" Mmmm, fairly non-commital.

Adam v Lindsell implicitly recognized the meeting of minds in contract law. This is where the jurisprudence of the "offer" comes from. The postal rule is still valid for postal mail. It does not apply for emails or fax transmissions, but does for the old "snail" mail.



Dunlop v Higgins affirms Adams v Lindsall. Re-read the case.

AFAIK a LOI does not need any counter-signing by the Acceptor (Walker) & returning. It would be good practice for him to acknowledge receipt however.

Actually thinking about it, I am not sure about who is the Acceptor. Presumably Walker is Offering his services, Bulls Accept. Hence the LOI is merely confirmation from the Bulls?

I am strongly inclined to agree with Bullpower on this. There's more than a slight whiff of a huge cock-up by Walker's agent. It seems he's now moving heaven and earth to rescue the financial side of this mess and to protect his 'business reputation' (if agents have any). I simply can't believe that we actually registered him with the RFL. It's becoming clearer that Walker didn't actually want to leave Oz so was probably keeping us on the back burner in case nobody Oz-side showed a big-dollar interest. That was unlikely given his reputation for simply chasing the $$$s - What did the Gold Coast chief say to him? "We are not an ATM". When did he sign this 'contract' - last Thursday??? Also, Orr has been quoted on this matter as saying "there has to be a duty of care". That's different to saying there has been a breach of contract. Something's just not right with Orr's version - I think basically the 2 of em buggered about for too long and now their game has gone tits up. Finally, maybe, just maybe we found out he wouldn't get a visa, which wouldn't be surprising given his past. If that was the case all bets would be off. Unless said contract was drafted by Binky the Clown.

Not sure when the ned of November is but usually overseas players arrive some time after xmas.
However we're playing a lot of early friendlies this year so the others might be over earlier.

There has been no mention of him whatsoever from the club though. As he's out of contract with his former club there would have been no reason why they shouldn't if the contract was signed, sealed and delivered!

Bit more coming out all from Walkouts Agent www.leaguehq.com.au/news/lhqnews ... 25057.html

Bit more coming out all from Walkouts Agent www.leaguehq.com.au/news/lhqnews ... 25057.html

Hopefully we'll have an announcement next week after the PA meet the RFL.

Won't mean anything - remember how the RFL ratified the Harris deal....................

Quote ="Blotto"Bit more coming out all from Walkouts Agent www.leaguehq.com.au/news/lhqnews ... 25057.html'" That's the GMB sniffing around then.

Quote ="Blotto"Bit more coming out all from Walkouts Agent www.leaguehq.com.au/news/lhqnews ... 25057.html'" That's the GMB sniffing around then.

[url=http://www.smh.com.au/news/lhqnews/rfl-in-talks-over-walkers-bradford-deal/2009/11/19/1258219925057.htmlAnother Link[/url

Looks like it may all be decided by Tuesday.

If as he states Kearney and Walker signed on the same say , why does Kearney have a visa and Walker doesnt ?

All this points to Walker having a visa rejected imo, which should have made his contract null and void.

I had my fears that signing Walker would be bad news, I didn't expect this though!

Very good point Mish!

Why thank you.



Following on from what I said, I suspect that Walker has since reapplyed for his visa, and I suspect the argument is whether, if he gets accepted a second time, the Bulls still have to honour the contract.

All this is guesswork of course!

Sounds very likely IMO.