Dion Prestia [merged]

[Stalin]

Wp doesn't have the ability to understand he is in reality free. Essentially free. Efc would obviously lose and the contract invalid.

The mind of an accountant.

[YellowandBlackBlood]

Wp doesn't have the ability to understand he is in reality free. Essentially free. Efc would obviously lose and the contract invalid.

The mind of an accountant.

Have you ever heard a lawyer say you will win a case guaranteed?

Therein lies the difference. WP is talking about what is the star of play right now. You are talking about a hypothetical future state. It may be the case, but there are no guarantees. The AFL for one, will not want this tested as it will definitely set a precedent.

[Dougeytherichmondfan]

Wp doesn't have the ability to understand he is in reality free. Essentially free. Efc would obviously lose and the contract invalid.

The mind of an accountant.

Have you ever heard a lawyer say you will win a case guaranteed?

Therein lies the difference. WP is talking about what is the star of play right now. You are talking about a hypothetical future state. It may be the case, but there are no guarantees. The AFL for one, will not want this tested as it will definitely set a precedent.

Essendon arn't likely to challenge a case they're likely to lose though 

[Stalin]

They have been injected with possible; cancer causing , future deformed children producing PED

 The contract is invalid. (Regardless of what tense you pedantically sorrowful types use).

There is a possibility the sky will turn green tomorrow too , a hypothetical future state. Doesn't mean it's a realistic scenario.

 

[YellowandBlackBlood]

Wp doesn't have the ability to understand he is in reality free. Essentially free. Efc would obviously lose and the contract invalid.

The mind of an accountant.

Have you ever heard a lawyer say you will win a case guaranteed?

Therein lies the difference. WP is talking about what is the star of play right now. You are talking about a hypothetical future state. It may be the case, but there are no guarantees. The AFL for one, will not want this tested as it will definitely set a precedent.

Essendon arn't likely to challenge a case they're likely to lose though 

Why? Seems like their insurance company has been paying for everything else! It is also up to Hurley to make the move to take it to court. What will his legal counsel tell him? They cannot say he will win for certain. The usual stance is that "you have a very good case here. Then, of course, there is no  guarantee of victory…".

[YellowandBlackBlood]

They have been injected with possible; cancer causing , future deformed children producing PED

 The contract is invalid. (Regardless of what tense you pedantically sorrowful types use).

There is a possibility the sky will turn green tomorrow too , a hypothetical future state. Doesn't mean it's a realistic scenario.

 

And yet if Essendon want to play hard ball, they can say they never forced anyone to take any of this. It was up to every individual player to decide what went into their body. Players like Zaharakis decided not to take the injections and were not punished…..
There is also no evidence that these drugs cause cancer. The onus is on the player to prove that they do.

[Stalin]

They have been injected with possible; cancer causing , future deformed children producing PED

 The contract is invalid. (Regardless of what tense you pedantically sorrowful types use).

There is a possibility the sky will turn green tomorrow too , a hypothetical future state. Doesn't mean it's a realistic scenario.

 

And yet if Essendon want to play hard ball, they can say they never forced anyone to take any of this. It was up to every individual player to decide what went into their body. Players like Zaharakis decided not to take the injections and were not punished…..
There is also no evidence that these drugs cause cancer. The onus is on the player to prove that they do.

The contract says he has to be in a safe work place. Regardless of "never forcing anyone"

Ask WPs legal-eagles

A class action lawsuit claims the parties behind the anti-aging pill TA-65 are pushing the non-prescription drug on consumers with bogus claims about its effectiveness and safety, and hides the fact that it can cause tumors and cancer in people who use

The Defendants also failed to warn the public that opinions have been expressed in the scientific community that a year of continuous telomerase activation – such as through using TA-65 – could allow pre-malignant lesions in the human body to expand into larger tumors that then could mutate into fatal malignancies on their own, even after the drug is no longer taken

http://www.topclassactions.com/laws...-65-deceptive-marketing-class-action-lawsuit#
 i

Didn't the rugby kid dank got his hands on die

Richmond can get hurley free. No draft picks. That is the point.

[Yeahright]

God I wish I could move to la la land where every hypothetical is guaranteed and people poo out rainbows

[Stalin]

There are different types of hypotheticals.

There is a chance the sun will send out a bean of light that wipe out earth next Thursday. Te chances are a small.

There is a chance hurley will be a chance to get at the cost of zero draft picks. Chances are high

I wish I could live in a land of less pedantic boring gits but we can all get what we want 

[dwaino]

What if there were no hypothetical situations?

[YellowandBlackBlood]

They have been injected with possible; cancer causing , future deformed children producing PED

 The contract is invalid. (Regardless of what tense you pedantically sorrowful types use).

There is a possibility the sky will turn green tomorrow too , a hypothetical future state. Doesn't mean it's a realistic scenario.

 

And yet if Essendon want to play hard ball, they can say they never forced anyone to take any of this. It was up to every individual player to decide what went into their body. Players like Zaharakis decided not to take the injections and were not punished…..
There is also no evidence that these drugs cause cancer. The onus is on the player to prove that they do.

The contract says he has to be in a safe work place. Regardless of "never forcing anyone"

Ask WPs legal-eagles

A class action lawsuit claims the parties behind the anti-aging pill TA-65 are pushing the non-prescription drug on consumers with bogus claims about its effectiveness and safety, and hides the fact that it can cause tumors and cancer in people who use

The Defendants also failed to warn the public that opinions have been expressed in the scientific community that a year of continuous telomerase activation – such as through using TA-65 – could allow pre-malignant lesions in the human body to expand into larger tumors that then could mutate into fatal malignancies on their own, even after the drug is no longer taken

http://www.topclassactions.com/laws...-65-deceptive-marketing-class-action-lawsuit#
 i

Didn't the rugby kid dank got his hands on die

Richmond can get hurley free. No draft picks. That is the point.

"Could allow" not "definitely allow".
Eating Rice Bubbles "could allow" it too. The onus is on you to prove that it does I would have thought.

[Owl]

Well, I can't sit here listening to you two argue all day, I am off to pinch off a rainbow

[Stalin]

Could allow implies there is a strong possibility the contract would remain valid.

99% the contract will be proven void

Most of you simpletons understand this deep down yet being disingenuous for the sake of floggery

[Owl]

Could allow implies there is a strong possibility the contract would remain valid.

99% the contract will be proven void

Most of you simpletons understand this deep down yet being disingenuous for the sake of floggery

Don't sugar coat it deary, tell us what you really feel 

[Dougeytherichmondfan]

Wp doesn't have the ability to understand he is in reality free. Essentially free. Efc would obviously lose and the contract invalid.

The mind of an accountant.

Have you ever heard a lawyer say you will win a case guaranteed?

Therein lies the difference. WP is talking about what is the star of play right now. You are talking about a hypothetical future state. It may be the case, but there are no guarantees. The AFL for one, will not want this tested as it will definitely set a precedent.

Essendon arn't likely to challenge a case they're likely to lose though 

Why? Seems like their insurance company has been paying for everything else! It is also up to Hurley to make the move to take it to court. What will his legal counsel tell him? They cannot say he will win for certain. The usual stance is that "you have a very good case here. Then, of course, there is no  guarantee of victory…".

I felt the sarcasm was pretty obvious but JIC I was actually being facetious.

I hear your point - He still actually has to challenge the contract in order to void it and therefore his current status still ties him to Essendon and requires a trade to move.

My point is that Essendon cannot play hardball as if this is exactly the case. They're not going to get a Rance type player in return. If they decide to become difficult, then a St.Kilda or a Bulldogs can pull out of negotiations and see if Hurley is willing to walk for nothing.