After a 10-year hiatus from rugby league, Israel Folau put his recent controversy behind him to score for his new club Catalans in the English Super League. Folau’s new team Catalans Dragons easily defeating Castleford 36-18.
No.
I know being one of the two firms involved in a high profile, confidential settlement that was known to those outside, would be terrible for your reputation.
So? Nobody is saying they do.
They are saying that independent people, adequately qualified and armed with all the facts came to a conclusion he failed to abide by the CoC.
Therefore he lied when he signed his contract.
So saying you will do something and not doing it isn't lying?
Beliefs are irrelevant. They'd only be relevant if it was originally said he'd only abide by his contract if it was in line with his beliefs.
The conversations and agreements are irrelevant too. Folau agrees to abide by the CoC.
I didn't say Folau failed to live up to his verbal agreement with Castle.
I said he failed to abide by the conditions of his contract. The CoC that an independent panel concluded he failed to abide by, specifically.
Many, many people are eventually privy to the outcome and the quantum is almost always know eventually in pretty much every ‘confidential’ settlement agreement. Documents are prepared and signed, money must be paid, transfers occur, staff are involved at every step. But you think nobody ever tells anyone. Rightio then.
It isn’t lying because you want to characterise it as that. In a complex situation the belief of the persons will not coincide. In many breach cases all parties believe they are totally in the right and the other is in the wrong. Folau also alleged that Castle has misrepresented their conversations and agreement after the first post. So do we conclude that she is telling lies or that there may be a difference of belief? Open your mind to all possibilities and you will gain a much better insight.
Actually an independent tribunal ruled he had breached it. The court was going to rule if it was enforceable.
I suppose a lie could seen as saying he would walk away if he was going to harm Australian rugby. And instead he sued them and then cut and run with the settlement. Allegedy – Incase someone wants to sue me for defamation.
Now that you've gone and edited your comment. Doesn't have to be proven. That's the least important part.
The reputation damage isn't based on proof.
The only way it would be know in legal circles is if one of the law firms was loose lipped. Which I find highly unlikely, because they wouldn't want to be associated with a case where confidential information was being spread around.
3 independent expects came to a conclusion he did.
His union selected one and approved a second one.
Even if the CoC was found to be non-binding, he has still agreed to it as part of his contract. By not complying he's lied.
Is it ok to lie, but then try and prove later that what you agreed cannot be enforced.
It's not defamatory because I am not saying anything that is untrue. I thought you were a lawyer. If so you'd know defamation requires a false statement.
He signed his contract that says he has to adhere to the CoC. He then failed to. An independent panel agreed he did not. That's all facts.
How is agreeing to do something, and then not doing it, not lying?
I am very naive to think that the only people whose reputation will be hurt if they are found to have broken it, are the lawyers?
Who wants a lawyer that can't maintain confidentiality?
A court must decide if Izzy breached the CoC, but first it must decide if the CoC is even part of the binding contractual terms and what the relevant part of the CoC means. It is all subject to interpretation and none of that has been undertaken by a court of law. In my opinion you saying that Izzy has lied is defamatory and has no basis in law. And describing a breach of a contract term as a ‘lie’ is just more self-serving demonisation of Izzy to suit your narrative.
You are very naive mate. My first post is a little inaccurate though. It cost DA 4 million, I don’t know exactly how much of that was paid to Folau, but it was obviously a substantial proportion. That is why Castle can say that the amount was ‘much less than the reported amount’ and it isn’t strictly an inaccurate statement depending on how you define ‘substantial’. When we get to see RA’s financials it will become clearer. Plus proving a breach of a confidentiality clause is almost impossible. Like finding the source of a verbal leak.
Paulo
Roar Rookie
Ok, well that was my understanding of it anyways. All good.
Gloria
Roar Rookie
No mate, much more complex than than that. If the trial had gone ahead the court had multiple issues of fact and law to decide.
Paulo
Roar Rookie
The court wasn’t ruling if the COC was breached, it was ruling on enforcement of it being legal or not. Those are 2 different things.
Train Without A Station
Roar Guru
No. I know being one of the two firms involved in a high profile, confidential settlement that was known to those outside, would be terrible for your reputation.
Train Without A Station
Roar Guru
So? Nobody is saying they do. They are saying that independent people, adequately qualified and armed with all the facts came to a conclusion he failed to abide by the CoC. Therefore he lied when he signed his contract.
Train Without A Station
Roar Guru
So saying you will do something and not doing it isn't lying? Beliefs are irrelevant. They'd only be relevant if it was originally said he'd only abide by his contract if it was in line with his beliefs. The conversations and agreements are irrelevant too. Folau agrees to abide by the CoC. I didn't say Folau failed to live up to his verbal agreement with Castle. I said he failed to abide by the conditions of his contract. The CoC that an independent panel concluded he failed to abide by, specifically.
Gloria
Roar Rookie
Many, many people are eventually privy to the outcome and the quantum is almost always know eventually in pretty much every ‘confidential’ settlement agreement. Documents are prepared and signed, money must be paid, transfers occur, staff are involved at every step. But you think nobody ever tells anyone. Rightio then.
Gloria
Roar Rookie
The panel has no standing in the court. The court decides all issues from scratch.
Gloria
Roar Rookie
It isn’t lying because you want to characterise it as that. In a complex situation the belief of the persons will not coincide. In many breach cases all parties believe they are totally in the right and the other is in the wrong. Folau also alleged that Castle has misrepresented their conversations and agreement after the first post. So do we conclude that she is telling lies or that there may be a difference of belief? Open your mind to all possibilities and you will gain a much better insight.
Ruckin Oaf
Guest
Hey Jacko, I really don't get why you think I'm offended.
Ruckin Oaf
Guest
Yeah and nobody would ever exaggerate how much they won for a client .......
Ruckin Oaf
Guest
Ahh well out of the 60 million or so that live in France that's clearly the "silent majority" in action then :)
Paulo
Roar Rookie
Actually an independent tribunal ruled he had breached it. The court was going to rule if it was enforceable. I suppose a lie could seen as saying he would walk away if he was going to harm Australian rugby. And instead he sued them and then cut and run with the settlement. Allegedy – Incase someone wants to sue me for defamation.
Paulo
Roar Rookie
Apology accepted.
Train Without A Station
Roar Guru
Now that you've gone and edited your comment. Doesn't have to be proven. That's the least important part. The reputation damage isn't based on proof. The only way it would be know in legal circles is if one of the law firms was loose lipped. Which I find highly unlikely, because they wouldn't want to be associated with a case where confidential information was being spread around.
Train Without A Station
Roar Guru
3 independent expects came to a conclusion he did. His union selected one and approved a second one. Even if the CoC was found to be non-binding, he has still agreed to it as part of his contract. By not complying he's lied. Is it ok to lie, but then try and prove later that what you agreed cannot be enforced. It's not defamatory because I am not saying anything that is untrue. I thought you were a lawyer. If so you'd know defamation requires a false statement. He signed his contract that says he has to adhere to the CoC. He then failed to. An independent panel agreed he did not. That's all facts. How is agreeing to do something, and then not doing it, not lying?
Train Without A Station
Roar Guru
I am very naive to think that the only people whose reputation will be hurt if they are found to have broken it, are the lawyers? Who wants a lawyer that can't maintain confidentiality?
Train Without A Station
Roar Guru
Just many others are saying that. Such as the person who this thread replies to.
Gloria
Roar Rookie
A court must decide if Izzy breached the CoC, but first it must decide if the CoC is even part of the binding contractual terms and what the relevant part of the CoC means. It is all subject to interpretation and none of that has been undertaken by a court of law. In my opinion you saying that Izzy has lied is defamatory and has no basis in law. And describing a breach of a contract term as a ‘lie’ is just more self-serving demonisation of Izzy to suit your narrative.
Gloria
Roar Rookie
You are very naive mate. My first post is a little inaccurate though. It cost DA 4 million, I don’t know exactly how much of that was paid to Folau, but it was obviously a substantial proportion. That is why Castle can say that the amount was ‘much less than the reported amount’ and it isn’t strictly an inaccurate statement depending on how you define ‘substantial’. When we get to see RA’s financials it will become clearer. Plus proving a breach of a confidentiality clause is almost impossible. Like finding the source of a verbal leak.