I don’t think we can just decide to repudiate and accept an award of damages unfortunately. A repudiation by us would need to be accepted by SDI, which they won’t do.
The court has effectively already granted an implement since it has said we have a new contract with SDI in implementation of the terms of the earlier one.
The court can’t make the “innocent” party to a breach of contract accept it’s at an end and impose damages if that party wants to continue with the contract - that’s an option for the “innocent” party to choose.
unilateral recession?
Unilateral rescission applies if there’s been fraud or incapacity or something else which vitiates the contract.
A party can’t just decide not to bother to be bound by the terms of a contract any more if the contract is otherwise valid, though.
I think the confusion here is that often the so called “innocent” party is quite happy to walk away from a breached contract with damages - sometimes it’s as good as they would get under the contract anyway, so why not.
If the innocent party wants to insist on an otherwise valid contract they can in principle though.
Here, particularly given damages are likely capped, SDI are almost certainly going to just insist on the contract.
The nature of the relationship between Rangers supporters and Sports Direct vitiates the contract. We hate Sports Direct, and will boycott them at every opportunity. Personally I will never shop in Sports Direct again, for anything. I haven't bought anything off them for years. Apart from the time the renegotiated contract was announced and I bought a few things out of the megastore. I feel dirty about those buys now.Unilateral rescission applies if there’s been fraud or incapacity or something else which vitiates the contract.
A party can’t just decide not to bother to be bound by the terms of a contract any more if the contract is otherwise valid, though.
I think the confusion here is that often the so called “innocent” party is quite happy to walk away from a breached contract with damages - sometimes it’s as good as they would get under the contract anyway, so why not.
If the innocent party wants to insist on an otherwise valid contract they can in principle though.
Here, particularly given damages are likely capped, SDI are almost certainly going to just insist on the contract.
No sorry you have mistaken me, from what you were saying before as the innocent party only SD could leave by Rescission and it’s not just for fraud. It’s also for when one party believes there has been a mistake made or contract signed under duress.
The nature of the relationship between Rangers supporters and Sports Direct vitiates the contract. We hate Sports Direct, and will boycott them at every opportunity. Personally I will never shop in Sports Direct again, for anything. I haven't bought anything off them for years. Apart from the time the renegotiated contract was announced and I bought a few things out of the megastore. I feel dirty about those buys now.
With a relationship between supplier and intended customers this toxic SDI should accept their involvement cannot continue.
I get that and my terminology wasn’t right. I agree that repudiatory breach is where the innocent party terminates a contract in response to a material breach by the at fault party. But I am not convinced that we can’t simply terminate the contract - or at least notify SD of termination effective on X date - notwithstanding that we don’t do so in accordance with the notice provisions of the contract. In that situation we force SD either to (1) accept the termination (wrongful though if may be on our part) and sue for damages for breach or (2) to seek some other remedy (injunction stopping us giving effect to the purported termination or specific performance). My point is that I am not convinced that a court will grant either of the remedies at (2) above where damages would prove an adequate remedy.I don’t think we can just decide to repudiate and accept an award of damages unfortunately. A repudiation by us would need to be accepted by SDI, which they won’t do.
The court has effectively already granted an implement since it has said we have a new contract with SDI in implementation of the terms of the earlier one.
The court can’t make the “innocent” party to a breach of contract accept it’s at an end and impose damages if that party wants to continue with the contract - that’s an option for the “innocent” party to choose.
It really does seem we're boxed in with little potential to manoeuvre. I guess it's appeal after appeal until we find a sympathetic judge.
Can @BrownBrogues or @Marty101 give us an honest opinion of where we go from here...after reading 23 pages i still don't really understand it, and i'm probably not the only one ..
Surely there has to be some way to terminate the contract outwith that fat bastard refusing to meet terms.
This matched agreement, are we obliged to accept it?We look like we are going to appeal, Court of Appeal sits in front of 3 Judges where further submissions will likely be made. Appeal Judge tend to consider matters with finer level of detail. Basically what has happened in this ruling is that the Judge has decided on a certain date where SD matched and a contract was formed. It really does not alter where we’re at already. Hummel won’t stock SD, Court can’t make Hummel send SD kit. Although the Judge considers a matched agreement deal was in place there is no benefit to us complying with our end of the Contract and we will probably end up having to pay a level of compensation later down the line.. there is a long way to go on this yet.
This matched agreement, are we obliged to accept it?
Don,t think sd are worried if the relationship is toxic or not .that is the main problem.The nature of the relationship between Rangers supporters and Sports Direct vitiates the contract. We hate Sports Direct, and will boycott them at every opportunity. Personally I will never shop in Sports Direct again, for anything. I haven't bought anything off them for years. Apart from the time the renegotiated contract was announced and I bought a few things out of the megastore. I feel dirty about those buys now.
With a relationship between supplier and intended customers this toxic SDI should accept their involvement cannot continue.
We look like we are going to appeal, Court of Appeal sits in front of 3 Judges where further submissions will likely be made. Appeal Judge tend to consider matters with finer level of detail. Basically what has happened in this ruling is that the Judge has decided on a certain date where SD matched and a contract was formed. It really does not alter where we’re at already. Hummel won’t stock SD, Court can’t make Hummel send SD kit. Although the Judge considers a matched agreement deal was in place there is no benefit to us complying with our end of the Contract and we will probably end up having to pay a level of compensation later down the line.. there is a long way to go on this yet.
Then sd would more than likely appeal that judges decision.It really does seem we're boxed in with little potential to manoeuvre. I guess it's appeal after appeal until we find a sympathetic judge.
Genuinely good to have you and Marty keeping us briefed on the various intracacies of the case. The bottom line so far as I can glean is that the judge's position is one of strict adherence to the terms of the contract regardless of the circumstances that prevailed at the time when it was signed or those that related to the people who signed it. I appreciate that a 'contract is a contract', but surely there has to be some cognisance within English Contract Law of circumstances which are/were clearly extremely 'questionable' when the said contract was signed? For example, what would a judge's position be if the proverbial 'gun' was being pointed towards the signatory or there was clearly collusion between the parties to the detriment of the company and its shareholders? Is there no scope for natural justice or morality within the system?
No, that appears to be our board/lawyers. At least when the 7 years notice was over we were free from SD. Now it appears they are with us forever.You've really got to hand it to the fat bstrd. He might be an utter cnt, but the one thing he isn't, is stupid.
This is not true. The original deal included matching rights for Sports Direct. So we wouldn't have been free of them.No, that appears to be our board/lawyers. At least when the 7 years notice was over we were free from SD. Now it appears they are with us forever.
Very well put Sir. And thanks for the words.
Here's hoping this is correct. My head is fried with this.This is not true. The original deal included matching rights for Sports Direct. So we wouldn't have been free of them.
There is a silver lining in this. Everything that is happening in court is necessary to get rid of Sports Direct. At least we're getting on with it now rather than finding out a few years down the line how difficult it is getting rid of these c*nts.
I was having an argument with someone on twitter as he was discussing the influence Ashley has at the club. Am I right in saying he is an insignificance power wise and his only thing he has is hitting us financially with these court cases. I take it our directors will continue to soak up the putt costs until we can finally get rid of Ashley?
How does it impact on us operating just now?
I just can’t get my head around this right to match forever . What do they gain if they aren’t selling any stuff ?
Hi Mate, like your work on Twitter I enjoy seeing what you do. Ashley has no power over the Club. And exactly as you said the Clubs Board will continue to adjust the business plan to factor in any hits from the retail stream. It is a significant stream it does stifle growth, fortunately Europa qualification last year put us ahead on the business plan, getting the same again will also help again in making up for the strangled growth on retail. We are likely going to need to pay him something for this term for loss of potential profit. There is a long way to on litigation and with the way Elite and Hummel was set up appears strategic for a reason.. a long way to go yet but Ashley doesn’t affect the Boards plans for the Club Playing Staff plans or Stadium refurb projects etc.
He has many ways to make money. He got into bed with us to hurt us.What i cant undersatnd is why a successful business man couldnt see the massive potential the fan base had to bring him in loads of money.
Dont be a greedy (unt and even sponsor the srips and they would have been global. But instead he tries to shaft us and he now is getting square root of %^*& all.
Strange behaviour
Because he got away with it at Newcastle he thought he could do the same with us.What i cant undersatnd is why a successful business man couldnt see the massive potential the fan base had to bring him in loads of money.
Dont be a greedy (unt and even sponsor the srips and they would have been global. But instead he tries to shaft us and he now is getting square root of %^*& all.
Strange behaviour
I'm now certain Ashley was and is a mentally challenged plant. This isn't a huge misunderstanding. It's deliberate.
I wonder how much money we make off the Elite sales.Reading the more informed brethren on the thread, it looks to me like the Hummel/Elite deal is our only hope atm. If we can keep that deal going we can out maneuver Ashley each year on Year with sales figures, with the bigger revenue going to the club. This is what the club and us need to concentrate on now and ensuring that deal is kept and patronised by every Bear.
Chainlink arms an hour before kick off outside the Megastore, form a barrier and ask bears not to go in the store. Chain for Change.Well the only thing now is to get militant.
In particular at the stadium store on match days.
Chainlink arms an hour before kick off outside the Megastore, form a barrier and ask bears not to go in the store. Chain for Change.
I'm now certain Ashley was and is a mentally challenged plant. This isn't a huge misunderstanding. It's deliberate.
In the long run he may still make moiney from this. But come on man. Do you really want SD sponsorship on the strips?What i cant undersatnd is why a successful business man couldnt see the massive potential the fan base had to bring him in loads of money.
Dont be a greedy (unt and even sponsor the srips and they would have been global. But instead he tries to shaft us and he now is getting square root of %^*& all.
Strange behaviour
I'm happy to do leaflets. I will in fact be doing one man protest at first league game.Agreed we should block anyone trying to get in to the store and hand out leaflets explaining the reasons . It wouldn’t take long for the message to be driven home .
No i dont want them sponsoring the strips. My point was back in the begining if je had not been a (unt he would have made spades of money and got his brand global attention for the right reasons.In the long run he may still make moiney from this. But come on man. Do you really want SD sponsorship on the strips?
I'm happy to do leaflets. I will in fact be doing one man protest at first league game.
A very harsh truth there, bro.No, that appears to be our board/lawyers. At least when the 7 years notice was over we were free from SD. Now it appears they are with us forever.
We should climb up onto the roof with a bannes and chain ourselves to the building. It's working for those oil rig protestors. They're getting acres of coverage.Agreed we should block anyone trying to get in to the store and hand out leaflets explaining the reasons . It wouldn’t take long for the message to be driven home .
We should climb up onto the roof with a bannes and chain ourselves to the building. It's working for those oil rig protestors. They're getting acres of coverage.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=oil+rig+protestors