I pondered a great deal before constructing this post.
You should have 'pondered' some more because you still continue to make absolutely no sense whatsoever, and it is painfully clear that you have no grounding in the law and no footing upon which to stand.
Mr Bake, the point I raised, perhaps too simply for your self assumed comprehensive mind to wrap its obviously limited capacity around, is that there is potential, on points of law, for JW /TTFF to win this case.
Yes... yes, we know... yuh keep moving yuh lips but nothing really coming out, which is why we ask for the "elaboration" you promised.
It matters not the theories, regardless of how well founded they may be.
Actually it does indeed matter the theories. If there are potential "points of law" as you claim then it should be a simple matter to enumerate the legal theories (what you calling "points of law") upon which Jack/the TTFF can found their appeal. If you can't name these "points of law" then at least have enough candor to admit that yuh just fishing shit out of the air. Also, it matters how "well founded they may be" because if they're not well-founded at all, then again, the appeal is worthless. Anybody can claim anything in court (just ask Jack/the TTFF) it doesn't mean you'll get anywhere with the bullshit.
It matters not who assumed liability, nor does it matter how spurious a claim may be. You would do well to realise that this is no longer a moral case but a legal one, and as such, the legal avenues remain open through which JW / TTFF, can successfully navigate, once guided by a strong legal mind.
You keep making conclusory statements without any foundation to support them. WHAT are these "legal avenues"? Also, it ABSOLUTELY matters who assumed liability... that is the central issue in this dispute, "Is the TTFF liable for the monies owed to the players, resulting from the promise made by Jack Warner". The TTFF has already lost that fight with the arbitrator so they're no longer contesting that issue. A simple, yet salient point which obviously escapes your understanding. The problem with speaking French to a chinaman is that no matter how simple you construct your sentences or how dulcet your tone, it still ends up sounding Greek to him. At least you gave us fair warning that you were
"not a lawyer by profession, however I have some limited experience in the practising and execution of its intricacies." Now I'm starting to realize exactly how "limited" that experience is. Maybe yuh's ah legal clerk... or maybe ah notary... perhaps like myself ah lowly "stenographer"... or maybe yuh does just lime outside de rumshop next door tuh de lawyer office. Whatever your "experience" you are lacking in any grounding in the law to even be arguing the points that you're trying to argue. It's a ruse which might work on the uneducated, but most here, even without much legal expertise can see right thru it.
In one sentence you claim that no appeal is available, and the very next you suggest an 'at best' option of appeal. Mr Bake, you are as confused as you are unlettered.
You accuse me of being "confused" yet your own confusion over a statement as simple as this betrays your ignorance. In order to make a legal argument there must be some basis in law, some guiding principle under which you bring that argument before the court. The court must first be able to properly frame your "issue" before contemplating the merits of your claim. At issue before the arbitrator (and I need not remind you here that the arbitrator's ruling is just as final and binding as a judge's or jury's in this instance) was "Whether there was a contract between the Players and the TTFF (thru the person of Jack Warner) for a 50-50 split of all revenues." The Arbitrator ruled in the affirmative. That established liability on the parts of the losing party, for payment to the prevailing party.
Immediately following that ruling the confidential terms of the decision was leaked to the Guardian (apparently by the losing party, for the prevailing party had no incentive at that point to jump the gun with the news... and no relationship, it bears noting, with the Trinidad Guardian) in apparent attempt to upset the ruling handed down by the Arbitrator. Ignoring the issue of liability (breaking it down for you... ignoring a challenge to the ruling itself, that they owed the players half), the losing party Jack and the TTFF (henceforth, just "Jack") tried a new gambit: "let's argue that the violated the terms of the arbitration, therefore the ruling has to be set aside." THIS was the basis upon which they grounded their appeal to the High Court. My statement to you, which apparently created great confusion in your feeble mind... is that by abandoning a direct challenge to the Arbitrator's ruling (again for the slow... that would be you... a challenge as to whether "Jack" is legally obligated to pay the players half), by abandoning that in favor of the "breach of confidentiality"... they are foreclosed, estopped, prevented, prohibited, barred etc... from now raising that in their appeal. The place to appeal that would have been the High Court. I then said "at best"... meaning if anything... the best they could try with the Court of Appeal is to say that the High Court's finding that there was no breach was unjust.
Even so... school ent over yet, stay with me... even so, you can't just appeal because yuh doh like de outcome. There are what are known as 'standards of appeal'. In other words, on what basis are you raising your appeal. One standard is called "plain error", which is the say that the judge's ruling is erroneous, and unsupported when one examines the facts. It is difficult to argue "plain error" because one would have to prove that testimony showed "A", while the judge took it upon himself to rule that "A" wasn't "A" but really was "B".
Another is "abuse of discretion"... which is to say that after looking at the facts, the judge didn't so much get them wrong, as much as he abused the discretion he had in ruling one way or another. This is even harder to argue because unless one can prove that the judge's decision was "arbitrary and capricious" then the reviewing panel will not disturb that decision.
A third standard of review is called "de novo" (latin for 'afresh' or 'anew'). This means that the judge mighta get the facts right but he misapplied the law or committed "legal error" in looking at those facts. In this case the appellate tribunal gets a fresh look at everything, all the testimony all the facts... everything. But to argue this is a real longshot, you have to prove that the judge clearly didn't know what he was doing... sorta you arguing these "points of law" nah.
The fiscal details of the agreement can be challenged on grounds of hearsay.
Nonsense. Stop listening tuh Law and Order and Googlepedia. Understand what "hearsay" means in the legal context before throwing it out there. The question is so silly that it defies understanding. Not even Om Lalla himself made that argument before the arbitrator nor before the High Court... what YOU with yuh "limited experience" know better than de TTFF champion lawyer?
The legality of the agreement can be challenged on grounds of whom was so empowered to make such.
Back with this jackass talk again. Under the Law of Agency, Jack Warner was an Agent of the TTFF. He negotiated for and on behalf of the TTFF on a number of things, from the original stadium deals where the TTFF paid the government for use of the Hasely Crawford Stadium, to the staging of the various Youth World Cups in TnT, to previous disputes involving players and coaches in the past. Say nothing of which, he carries the somewhat nebulous term of "Special Advisor". His role as an agent of the TTFF is undisputed.
Under the Law of Agency, liability of a Principal (the TTFF) can be created by an Agent (Jack) in several ways:
Actual authority- there's an understanding or agreement telling the agent what he is explicity authorized to do on behalf of the Principal
Inherent authority- actions the Principal should reasonably have foreseen the Agent as likely doing. Ex. You hire a contractor to paint your house knowing that you live in a row house and paint might get on yuh neighbor house. You reasonably should foresee this as happening, and do something to ensure it doesn't happen. If you don't... then yuh liable fuh de paint getting on yuh neighbor house.
Ratification- The Agent does something and the Principal by action (or failure to act) adopts the action of the Principal. You hire a contractor to put in stop lights at an intersection, and on the last three jobs he do fuh yuh he put in stoplights with only two lights, green and yellow... no red. Well guess what, any accident that happen you liable because by failing to correct or repudiate it, you 'adopt' his action, it come like yuh own.
Then we come to the most relevant...
Apparent authority. By allowing the Agent to act in a certain capacity (yuh know, negotiating stadium deals, hiring and firing coaches, negotiating with players etc.) you create in the mind of the reasonable onlooker, the impression that the Agent (Jack) has the authority to act on your behalf. Again, there really is no question as to the issue of whether Jack was acting without legal authority. Om and dem ent raise it at the Arbitration because they know is not a winning argument... but apparently what you hear inside de rumshop have yuh convinced otherwise.
That some members of the team accepted payment, it may be argued that payment was offered and accepted, thus indicating a degree of fairness in the offer.
Now you just fishing talk out yuh ass. If half the team took Jack up on his instruction to go "jump off a cliff", that in of itself is no indication that such an instruction is "fair" or reasonable. Not that fair and reasonable have anything to do with anything. What you promise is what you pay. If yuh didn't think the promise was fair then don't make it.
That some members of the team accepted payment, it may be argued that they are pursuing settlement far greater than what was promised.
Lol... this bullshit. Well there really was no question as to what was promised (even though Jack tried... and quickly abandoned that route early on in the dispute). We know what was promised because there were many objective third parties (including members of the media) present when the promise was made. If some other fellas under pressure and settle for less that ent mean the others asking for 'more'.
That the non disclosure agreement was breached, regardless of by whom, is another point.
No... it is a non-point, the High Court says so. And who is responsible for the breach is controlling of the outcome of any subsequent claim. The non-breaching party will not be made to suffer for the actions of the breaching party. In this case the TTFF could not show who was responsible for the breach. Of course if they really did then that would only end up hurting them even more... since all ah we know is dem who do it.
Granted that some of the above may be lies, half truths and shallow, it nevertheless are points that can be argued, and will be.
"points that can be argued" on a messageboard, or maybe in your special parallel universe.
Mr Bake, your literary ramblings reveal a disposition of sorely misguided anger and a mind caught up in an intellectual conundrum. You must be careful when writing, as you never fail to expose your inability to grasp points.
Yes... yes Dr. Phil, I cyah read and need anger management and all that. But fuh de moment leh we try and focus on plugging de holes in this sinking ship yuh insist on sailing nd leave de pseudo-psychoanalysis fuh another day.
