Tyrone starlet signs Swans deal / Coney staying in Ireland

[T-bag]

Come out by all means and have a look, take in the sights etc, etc. But don't sign a contract FFS. Its stopped another kid getting a chance, stuffed everyone around and put unnecessary costs on a club that has to make money to survive.

That's the issue here, not some soppy BS that the little squib was pining for the home country

Who cares why he went home. The fact is that he squibbed on his commitments. Not much of a man in my eyes.

Tyrone Man pfft

[connolly]

A little knowledge has always been a dangerous thing. On-line law reports and the internet marketing materials of mid-tier firms have increased the danger ten-fold.

The law needs to be read in context. The cases you refer to are not even close. Don't extend your modest endeavours to the giving of legal advice without having a lawyer read the terms of your PI insurance.

Yes and it would be helpful if we were in the same conceptual post code. I have raised the issue of damages in tort and have had an argument thrown over the fence that relates to contract law. Context and same fact situations are not the same thing either.The cases I refer to are precedent for the awarding of exemplary damages as a consequence of the tort of inducement to breach contract.

[connolly]

And now your just talking bollocks

Strong men indeed, when in reality there are a couple of senior has beens pushing an agenda that keep them in control, players on a committee picking a manager? Consultation is good and well, but actually giving them a say?

Only in somewhere in Cork could it happen

And only in Ulster would a sporting association attack the right of a players union to be recognised as a negotiating agent during a dispute. The attack by Tyrone on the right of unions to negotiate was disgraceful. And they are the same scab mob that encouraged Coney to break his contract.

[connolly]

http://www.independent.ie/sport/gael...r-1597782.html

There is evidence that Tyrone and or its agents induced the kid to breach his contract. Sue the scabs. And go the mighty red and whites - Cork that is.

[ROK Lobster]

Yes and it would be helpful if we were in the same conceptual post code. I have raised the issue of damages in tort and have had an argument thrown over the fence that relates to contract law. Context and same fact situations are not the same thing either.The cases I refer to are precedent for the awarding of exemplary damages as a consequence of the tort of inducement to breach contract.

As you said, punitive damages may be awarded

whenever the defendant's conduct is sufficiently outrageous to merit punishment, as where it discloses malice, fraud, cruelty, insolence or the like.

Those are strong words. The are a long way from the very minor disagreement here. It would be laughed out of court (if you could find a lawyer stupid enough to take it in). You are making a fool of yourself, again. Go back to your true crime, the cut and thrust of the commercial world seems beyond you.

[SimonH]

I won't answer the straw man arguments....

"Something more than the mere commission of a tort is always required for punitive damages. There must be circumstances of aggravation or outrage, such as spite or `malice', or a fraudulent or evil motive on the part of the defendant, or such a conscious and deliberate disregard of the interests of others that the conduct may be called wilful or wanton."

You've certainly established that the phrase "It's trite law that..." is overused for a reason.

Trotting out the trite law, does nothing to establish that the Swans stand to be beneficiaries of it. In fact, your case at its highest seems to be that it would be "unusual and rare" that we'd be doing anything other than pissing money away. The case of Jones Brothers (Hunstaton) Ltd v Stevens that you cite, points the wrong way for you: it's used by the author of An Analysis of the Economic Torts as a case study in 'no damage from the inducement to breach because the employee didn't want to come back anyway'.

You've gotten so bogged down in cutting & pasting slabs of legal text, that you've failed to set out what the argument is for the Swans to actually claim any meaningful damages from a court. The idea that a plaintiff who's suffered minimal-to-nil damage would sue someone in the hope of cleaning up on exemplary damages, is utterly laughable, as anyone who's ever worked in litigation would know.

The challenge in the first section of my last post remains. Cases of unions illegally punishing employers who break 'closed shop' arrangements, or airlines busting mass pilot strikes, are hardly to the point. Here it is again:

Name a single case in Australia-- ever-- where a judge has awarded exemplary damages in a simple case of an employee signing a fixed term contract, and then just failing to turn up one day.

I don't say anything about suing in contract or tort; or suing the employee or anyone who encouraged them not to turn up.

Any case at all, ever, based on that common fact scenario, where exemplary damages were awarded to the wronged employer.

[connolly]

As you said, punitive damages may be awarded


Those are strong words. The are a long way from the very minor disagreement here. It would be laughed out of court (if you could find a lawyer stupid enough to take it in). You are making a fool of yourself, again. Go back to your true crime, the cut and thrust of the commercial world seems beyond you.

Minor disagreement? Officials of Tyrone it appears deliberately pressured (young Murphy's words) Coney to breach his contract. If this is so and it would have to be established on the balance of probabilities, exemplary damages against Tyrone, Harte and Cavanuagh would be probable. Their conduct was:
1. wilful
2. in deliberate disregard for the rights and interests of the plaintiff (thats us)

Damages are at large and punative damages are discretionary. In regard to economic torts the law is developing. The damages are available as compensation for conscious wrongdoing in contumelious disregard of the plaintiffs rights. You clearly know the meaning of contumelious. And does that not characterise the behaviour of a Tyrone official who has campaigned against the recruitment of Gaelic footballers to AFL and deliberately encourages a young footballer under his influence to break a contract?

[connolly]

You've certainly established that the phrase "It's trite law that..." is overused for a reason.

Trotting out the trite law, does nothing to establish that the Swans stand to be beneficiaries of it. In fact, your case at its highest seems to be that it would be "unusual and rare" that we'd be doing anything other than pissing money away. The case of Jones Brothers (Hunstaton) Ltd v Stevens that you cite, points the wrong way for you: it's used by the author of An Analysis of the Economic Torts as a case study in 'no damage from the inducement to breach because the employee didn't want to come back anyway'.

You've gotten so bogged down in cutting & pasting slabs of legal text, that you've failed to set out what the argument is for the Swans to actually claim any meaningful damages from a court. The idea that a plaintiff who's suffered minimal-to-nil damage would sue someone in the hope of cleaning up on exemplary damages, is utterly laughable, as anyone who's ever worked in litigation would know.

The challenge in the first section of my last post remains. Cases of unions illegally punishing employers who break 'closed shop' arrangements, or airlines busting mass pilot strikes, are hardly to the point. Here it is again:

I don't say anything about suing in contract or tort; or suing the employee or anyone who encouraged them not to turn up.

Any case at all, ever, based on that common fact scenario, where exemplary damages were awarded to the wronged employer.

O dear. The law of Australia as you quaintly put is irrelevant to the issue. The tort occured in Ulster. The law of the UK will be applied under the principle of the law of the place of the tort applying. And there is ample case law concerning damages against third party inducers of breaches of employment contracts.
Liability for inducing breach of contract was established by the famous case of Lumley v Gye (1853) 2 E & B 216. The court based its decision on the general principle that a person who procures another to commit a wrong incurs liability as an accessory.
"It is clear that the procurement of the violation of a right is a cause of action in all instances where the violation is an actionable wrong, as in violations of a right to property, whether real or personal, or to personal security: he who procures the wrong is a joint wrongdoer, and may be sued, either alone or jointly with the agent, in the appropriate action for the wrong complained of."
The case concerned the actress Johanna Wagner (neice of the composer) who was engaged by Lumley to sing at Her Majesty's Theatre in London. Gye, who ran Covent Garden, induced the lovely Miss Wagner to break her contract with Lumley by promising her more money. Gye was held liable to Lumley for inducing a breach of contract. Lumley was a solicitor before becoming a theatre manager. Now this foundational case of economic tort which comcerns a (yes - fixed term - although why that is relevant has me stuffed) employment contract has been precedent for only 155 years. I cant be arsed doing any more of your research at the moment. However you clearly don't understand what damages at large means. Before you start pontificating on the extent of damages in punitve damage cases you should cast your erudite eye over this:

Vale v. Int. Longshoremen's & Warehousemen's Union, Loc. 508 (1979), 12 B.C.L.R. 249, (B.C.C.A.) which sets out the principles for the assessment of punative damages:

Damages for the tort of inducing breach of contract are said to be "at large". This means that their assessment is "a matter of impression and not addition": see Cassell & Co. Ltd. v. Broome, [1972] A.C. 1027 at 1072, per Lord Hailsham of St. Marylebone L.C. In this respect they are similar to damages for libel. The plaintiff is to be compensated for the invasion of a right and need not be put to strict proof of specific damage: Exchange Telegraph v. Gregory & Co., [1896] 1 Q.B. 147 at 153 (C.A.). The court must assess a global figure approximating the harm it thinks he has suffered. It may take into account a number of factors, including of course any pecuniary loss that has been suffered. As Lord Hailsham has put it in Cassell & Co. Ltd. v. Broome, supra, at p. 1073: The expression "at large" is used to cover all cases where awards of damages include elements for loss of reputation, injured feelings, bad or good conduct by either party, or punishment, and where as a consequence no precise limit can be set .

So maybe some bum Australian law firms wouldn't have the wit or the ticker to recommend litigation. But to claim that such litigation would be laughed out of court shows both ignorance and arrogance.

Study son study.

[Dalai Lama]

Broken bottles under childrens feet
Bodies strewn across the dead end street
But I wont heed the battle call
It puts my back up
Puts my back up against the wall

And the battles just begun
Theres many lost, but tell me who has won
The trench is dug within our hearts
And mothers, children, brothers, sisters torn apart

How long...
How long must we sing this song?
How long? how long...

[satchmopugdog]

Broken bottles under childrens feet
Bodies strewn across the dead end street
But I wont heed the battle call
It puts my back up
Puts my back up against the wall

And the battles just begun
Theres many lost, but tell me who has won
The trench is dug within our hearts
And mothers, children, brothers, sisters torn apart

How long...
How long must we sing this song?
How long? how long...

Beautiful on two levels in this Oirish situation.

[stephenite]

And only in Ulster would a sporting association attack the right of a players union to be recognised as a negotiating agent during a dispute. The attack by Tyrone on the right of unions to negotiate was disgraceful. And they are the same scab mob that encouraged Coney to break his contract.

Why do amateurs require a union? Why are they in dispute? I am still intersted in hearing why sport for all in Ireland benefited as a result of the actions of the Cork strike in '02, Gaelic games perhaps but sport in general?


Anyway, Mickey Harte denies any pressing Coney in the issue

http://www.independent.ie/sport/gael...l-1599583.html

[CJK]

That law talk is really, really boring.