Menu
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Help Support The Rugby Forum :
Forums
Rugby Union
General Rugby Union
Izzy Folau
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="BobbyM" data-source="post: 941856" data-attributes="member: 73737"><p>I appreciate you coming back on this sincerely, and taking the time to consider a response.</p><p></p><p>Could I perhaps suggest a difference between this situation and the counterexample you suggest?</p><p></p><p>Folau held his beliefs before he signed the contract. He knowingly signed it with the awareness that it conflicted with his beliefs.</p><p></p><p>When one signs a non competition clause with a company to begin employment, it stands to reason that they work for that employer with the best intentions to do the best they can for that company. Effectively they sign the contract in good faith to honour it.</p><p></p><p>Now, situations change where they are no longer able to do so (bad experience etc) and so they change from a view that is aligned to their company to one that is not, and they seek alternative employment. Now just because they no longer wish to work with that employer doesn't mean they didn't want to at the time they signed the contract. Indeed, their signature is an indication of their good faith.</p><p></p><p>Conversely, and as above, Folau knew when he signed the contract of the conflict it had with his beliefs, which suggests that he either;</p><p></p><p>a) didn't consider the discrepancy between his beliefs and the code of conduct he was agreeing to, or</p><p>b) he knowingly signed something he knew was not aligned to his beliefs, and was thus not an agreement made in good faith.</p><p></p><p>Now I am willing to concede that he may not have been aware of the code of conduct of RA, but this has not been suggested by him or his representatives. </p><p></p><p>This brings us to "b)", which as you will note has a key difference between this situation and the example you present. As above, in your example one can reasonably enter into a contract in good faith but things can change. When considering Folau, he has consistently shown that his beliefs have not changed.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="BobbyM, post: 941856, member: 73737"] I appreciate you coming back on this sincerely, and taking the time to consider a response. Could I perhaps suggest a difference between this situation and the counterexample you suggest? Folau held his beliefs before he signed the contract. He knowingly signed it with the awareness that it conflicted with his beliefs. When one signs a non competition clause with a company to begin employment, it stands to reason that they work for that employer with the best intentions to do the best they can for that company. Effectively they sign the contract in good faith to honour it. Now, situations change where they are no longer able to do so (bad experience etc) and so they change from a view that is aligned to their company to one that is not, and they seek alternative employment. Now just because they no longer wish to work with that employer doesn’t mean they didn’t want to at the time they signed the contract. Indeed, their signature is an indication of their good faith. Conversely, and as above, Folau knew when he signed the contract of the conflict it had with his beliefs, which suggests that he either; a) didn’t consider the discrepancy between his beliefs and the code of conduct he was agreeing to, or b) he knowingly signed something he knew was not aligned to his beliefs, and was thus not an agreement made in good faith. Now I am willing to concede that he may not have been aware of the code of conduct of RA, but this has not been suggested by him or his representatives. This brings us to “b)”, which as you will note has a key difference between this situation and the example you present. As above, in your example one can reasonably enter into a contract in good faith but things can change. When considering Folau, he has consistently shown that his beliefs have not changed. [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rugby Union
General Rugby Union
Izzy Folau
Top