Screpis : Interesting legal dispute brewing

[Jammy T]

http://sport.scotsman.com/football/Screpis--contests-exit-from.4330383.jp

 

Fraudulent misrepresentation (would be very serious)

 

or

 

Bitter ex-player (yes yet another one - does any other club have so many?) wanting to take Vlad for a ride based upon a lie

[rudi]

Just another human being Vlad has fecked about,we shouldn't be surprised anymore about the way Vlad and his merry men do their stuff.

 

Hopefully what goes around comes around to them.

[Charlie-Brown]

As a general rule you should never sign any legal documents or contracts that you are unsure of - even more-so if you don't fully understand the language they're written in.

[kjc2006]

So he signed a contract and didnt realise that it had a clause allowing Hearts to release him. I really can't see how he has any case for a claim for compensation, he should have read the contract before signing it.

[Jammy T]

As a general rule you should never sign any legal documents or contracts that you are unsure of - even more-so if you don't fully understand the language they're written in.

 

Of course.

 

Equally you should never misrepresent the contents of a document and pressure somebody into signing that document.

 

IF Screpis is right the fraudulent mispresentation and pressure into signing argument would succeed over "well he shouldnt have signed it" one

 

I'm sure he wont win even if he is telling the truth though. Vlad will have that angle covered

[Jammy T]

So he signed a contract and didnt realise that it had a clause allowing Hearts to release him. I really can't see how he has any case for a claim for compensation, he should have read the contract before signing it.

 

misrepresentation of the terms of the contract would be legitimate grounds for the contract to be declared null and void

 

if any of us signed a contract in such circumstances it would be the same

[Charlie-Brown]

Of course.

 

Equally you should never misrepresent the contents of a document and pressure somebody into signing that document.

 

IF Screpis is right the fraudulent mispresentation and pressure into signing argument would succeed over "well he shouldnt have signed it" one

 

I'm sure he wont win even if he is telling the truth though. Vlad will have that angle covered

 

what screpis would have to prove then was that he signed the contract under 'duress' in which case the whole contract is invalid - he would also require to answer why he didn't raise this point earlier ie 6 months ago.

[Sharpie]

If I read the article correctly Screpis states that there was a termination clause but it was on the back of the document. Surely he has an agent, or a lawyer who should have read the contract for him. Equally if he feels his English was not good enough to properly understand the Terms he was signing e should have hired someone to read it for him.

 

I do not count myself the smartest person in the world, but I read each contract, insurance policy or like document closely. As an example I put in an offer on a condominium which was administered as a Strata, a term of the offer was that I had to have all documents pertaining to the Strata provided by a certain date, failure to do so rendered the contract invalid. On receiving the documents I realized the place was a disaster, and a litigious hell. Due to the Real Estate agent being late with the documents I much to his chagrin cancelled the contract. Failure to have properly read the contract could have cost me quite a bit.

 

I may also add that the Agent accused me of all sorts of low tactics and was until advised to desist quite abusive.

[Jambomo]

""I spoke to Juan on the telephone and we asked for the contract to be faxed for him to read because he speaks fluent English, but Hearts said there was not enough time.

 

"Vilma said it was the same contract, the only change being that my ?10,000 signing fee would not be paid instantly. It was to be spread over several months. "I agreed to that and signed the second contract."

 

If what was said in the evening news above, was true Hearts could be on shaky ground as they will have known he could not read the contract himself, yet would not allow him the time to fax it to his agent - something which would have taken a few minutes - to read. They would also have lied as to the contents of the contract.

 

It will be interesting to see the outcome of this.

[Ibrahim Tall]

If Screpis should be suing anyone it's the agent who allowed him to sign the contract in the first place. It's hardly Hearts fault for trying to get the best deal they could from the situation.

[marshallschunkychicken]

The contract was in English, he didn't have his agent, and Hearts (UBIG) wouldn't let him fax the contract for his agent to look over.

 

However you dress it up, it's shameful way to treat a player.

[Imeantasong]

It's not as if we don't have a fax machine.

 

The guy was signed on the recommendation of Pedro and another non-footie guy. Vlad has sacked people for less.

 

Just doesn't seem right though, no matter what you think of the player's ability. I tend to believe he was treated shoddily.

[Rabgee]

""I spoke to Juan on the telephone and we asked for the contract to be faxed for him to read because he speaks fluent English, but Hearts said there was not enough time.

 

Maybe the fax machine was busy!

[Drylaw Hearts]

An unsurprisingly messy situation.

 

One bit doesn't quite add up though :

 

 

"He called many times when he was in Argentina asking me to sign. I was playing for Defensores de Belgrano at the time. I had offers from Italy and Greece but I was told I would sign for Hearts at the training camp in Austria.

 

"There I met Vladimir Romanov and I was told to join Kaunas instead because, after one training session, they did not think I was good enough for Hearts.

"It was only a physical session but I agreed to go to Lithuania.

 

"I signed a contract to play for Kaunas from July 2007 until December 2007.

 

"At the same time, I signed another contract with Hearts to run from January 2, 2008, until June 30, 2011. I wanted to get to Hearts as quick as possible because I wanted to play in Scotland.

 

If he wasn't good enough in July how on earth was he going to be good enough in January !!

 

 

 

The whole thing stinks.

[hawaii]

Don't worry folks, Fraser Wishart will be getting his trusty white steed out the stables as I type. Expect to see him on TV tomorrow live from Tynecastle calling Vlad all sorts.

[Benny Factor]

what screpis would have to prove then was that he signed the contract under 'duress' in which case the whole contract is invalid - he would also require to answer why he didn't raise this point earlier ie 6 months ago.

 

Looks to me as if Vlad never had any intention of Screpis playing for Hearts, but used that promise of a contract with us to get him to sign a contract with Kaunas.

 

Screpis' has been done over on this one, but you really have to question both him and his agent if it takes the party terminating your contract to tell you of a clause in it, FOUR months after signing it.

[Coco]

It is only one side of the story of course.

 

There was the 'Hearts' side a month or two back with the supposed salary which is way above the version in the EN story I suppose.

 

But anyway on the surface it looks like a pretty shabby way to treat someone, even if it is all above board legally.

[Bindy Badgy]

I do not count myself the smartest person in the world, but I read each contract, insurance policy or like document closely. As an example I put in an offer on a condominium which was administered as a Strata, a term of the offer was that I had to have all documents pertaining to the Strata provided by a certain date, failure to do so rendered the contract invalid. On receiving the documents I realized the place was a disaster, and a litigious hell. Due to the Real Estate agent being late with the documents I much to his chagrin cancelled the contract. Failure to have properly read the contract could have cost me quite a bit.

 

I can't emphasise how important this is enough. I never used to read the T&Cs but within two months of starting work for a financial institution I promised myself that I would before entering any type of financial arrangement.

[Gambo]

I'm sure he won't need any legal representitive in his dispute/battle, he can just come on here and find enough folk to help him if it means getting one over on Vlad.

[Jammy T]

I'm sure he won't need any legal representitive in his dispute/battle, he can just come on here and find enough folk to help him if it means getting one over on Vlad.

 

So what are your thoughts on the topic?

 

Day in day out there is a thread relating to the EEN articles - not that controversial

 

Either Screpis is a bare faced liar OR Hearts are guilty of fraudulent misrepresentation.

 

Leaving alone the issue of Romanov this would be a topic worthy of discussion at any club

 

Just because there is a lot of ammunition in respect of the behaviour of Vlad doesnt mean each individual issue cant be discussed. Its not our fault that Romanov behaves in such a manner which leaves him wide open to criticism.

 

Fraudulent misrepresentation is a new one in Vlad's reign as far as I can recall so is hardly discussing old territory

[Only a Game]

http://sport.scotsman.com/football/Screpis--contests-exit-from.4330383.jp

 

Fraudulent misrepresentation (would be very serious)

 

or

 

Bitter ex-player (yes yet another one - does any other club have so many?) wanting to take Vlad for a ride based upon a lie

 

He signed a contract he didnt read or understand.

 

Case dismissed m'lord

[Eldar Hadzimehmedovic]

Screpis is a naive idiot. But what a terrible, appalling way to conduct scouting business, transfer business and contract negotiations. And that's without even judging the way we treated a person slightly confused in a new country with a language he didn't understand.

[Beverley]

if his story is true, its a shameful way to treat any human being

 

 

the fact they wouldn't allow a little time for his agent to read through it, especially knowing screpis wasn't fluent in english is underhand at best, and downright nasty any other way you want to look at it.

 

regardless how you view him as a footballer, its no way to treat people and will make anyone debating signing for us think several times more than they already would be.

 

as has already been pointed out though, he DID sign the contract so legally he won't have a leg to stand on as ignorance is not a defence.

i studied a little contract law at college, and this was a major point. the fact he never took independent advice means he will not win unless he is able to prove it was signed under duress, and we all know that this loophole is bound to be covered.

 

poor bloke if this is true though, cos he always sounded keen to play for us

[Gambo]

So what are your thoughts on the topic?

 

Day in day out there is a thread relating to the EEN articles - not that controversial

 

Either Screpis is a bare faced liar OR Hearts are guilty of fraudulent misrepresentation.

 

Leaving alone the issue of Romanov this would be a topic worthy of discussion at any club

 

Just because there is a lot of ammunition in respect of the behaviour of Vlad doesnt mean each individual issue cant be discussed. Its not our fault that Romanov behaves in such a manner which leaves him wide open to criticism.

 

Fraudulent misrepresentation is a new one in Vlad's reign as far as I can recall so is hardly discussing old territory

 

O.A.G.'s post under yours (quoted above) has answered for me.

 

I'm sure Hearts could find plenty of press cutting with Screpis pleading and pleading to sign a contract with Hearts.

[Jammy T]

He signed a contract he didnt read or understand.

 

Case dismissed m'lord

 

Yawn I'm going to win this argument

 

eg

 

In the case of Peekay Intermark Limited and Harish Pawani -v- Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited [2005] EWHC 830, a sophisticated client of a bank who signed, but failed to read, the detailed final terms and conditions for the purchase of an investment product was held not to be bound by the signed document.

 

The reason - misrepresentation of the terms of the contract in a meeting immediately before signing - wasnt even pressure here to sign the doc

 

I could cite cases backing this up til the cows come home....

[Jammy T]

O.A.G.'s post under yours (quoted above) has answered for me.

 

I'm sure Hearts could find plenty of press cutting with Screpis pleading and pleading to sign a contract with Hearts.

 

Way may not agree on all things Hearts Gambo but I did think of you as having more empathy in respect of humans generally.

 

So you support Hearts conduct in shafting Screpis? (on the basis he hasnt made the story up)

[Gambo]

Yawn I'm going to win this argument

 

eg

 

In the case of Peekay Intermark Limited and Harish Pawani -v- Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited [2005] EWHC 830, a sophisticated client of a bank who signed, but failed to read, the detailed final terms and conditions for the purchase of an investment product was held not to be bound by the signed document.

 

The reason - misrepresentation of the terms of the contract in a meeting immediately before signing - wasnt even pressure here to sign the doc

 

I could cite cases backing this up til the cows come home....

 

Will bow to your knowledge of law, but..................

 

After his continual bleating to the press before he signed about how Hearts were not playing ball with him, would you not think that when a contarct offer appeared from out of the blue that he might have been a wee bit cautious The only pressure to sign that i have read about was Screpis's desperation to get to Hearts.

[Jammy T]

 

as has already been pointed out though, he DID sign the contract so legally he won't have a leg to stand on as ignorance is not a defence.

 

misrepresentation being the exception to the general rule

[Beverley]

misrepresentation being the exception to the general rule

 

thats very true, however, how easy would it be for him to prove?

[Jammy T]

Will bow to your knowledge of law, but..................

 

After his continual bleating to the press before he signed about how Hearts were not playing ball with him, would you not think that when a contarct offer appeared from out of the blue that he might have been a wee bit cautious The only pressure to sign that i have read about was Screpis's desperation to get to Hearts.

 

it doesnt really matter as he was lied to about the content of the contract

 

I'm fairly sure the majority of people on here, if were told, look the first contract wasnt registered on time, here, sign this exact same copy, wouldnt read through it.

 

I doubt I would have to be honest - I wouldnt have thought a major company would act in such a way

 

You are allowed to criticise Romanov a little you know - it is still possible to be loyal to him

 

If Screpis is telling the truth this is a shabby way to deal with an employee. Not only that it is illegal

 

C'mon c'mon - agree with me

 

Screpis wasnt even a trouble maker or a high earner

[Beverley]

 

Screpis wasnt even a trouble maker or a high earner

 

and thats what makes this all the worse. we never got to see much of him, and he seemed like one of the few who kept his head down and WANTED to work.

[redm]

Yawn I'm going to win this argument

 

eg

 

In the case of Peekay Intermark Limited and Harish Pawani -v- Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited [2005] EWHC 830, a sophisticated client of a bank who signed, but failed to read, the detailed final terms and conditions for the purchase of an investment product was held not to be bound by the signed document.

 

The reason - misrepresentation of the terms of the contract in a meeting immediately before signing - wasnt even pressure here to sign the doc

 

I could cite cases backing this up til the cows come home....

 

But which court actually has jurisdiction over this sort of thing? As with Webster, would the first stop not be the Court of Arbitration for Sport or would their involvement have to be agreed by all parties following mediation of some description? I don't know how this stuff works.

 

Presumably they can't just go straight to the Scottish courts with a civil case?

[Charlie-Brown]

Why was Screpis happy to sign or negotiate new contracts both in january and in june/july this year? Also why wasn't he having the January 31st contract invalidated in the first couple of weeks in February if he wasn't happy with the terms & conditions if he felt he'd sign the contract under duress or misrepresentation?

 

I think he just wants some extra money and so do the Ugandans.

[Only a Game]

Yawn I'm going to win this argument

 

eg

 

In the case of Peekay Intermark Limited and Harish Pawani -v- Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited [2005] EWHC 830, a sophisticated client of a bank who signed, but failed to read, the detailed final terms and conditions for the purchase of an investment product was held not to be bound by the signed document.

 

The reason - misrepresentation of the terms of the contract in a meeting immediately before signing - wasnt even pressure here to sign the doc

 

I could cite cases backing this up til the cows come home....

 

Can you cite a Scots Law case with a similar outcome bearing in mind the standard of proof required in Scots Law civil cases and the weight lent to corroborated evidence against uncorroboated evidence ?

[Jammy T]

thats very true, however, how easy would it be for him to prove?

 

him and his missus v one Hearts employee

 

balance favours him

 

I'm pretty sure Vlad would have ensured another Hearts rep, maybe even 2, just in case

 

I'm sure Vlad he would also argue "language breakdown, he was told everything, not our fault he didnt understand" and create enough mirk to get out of it

 

Only have to prove it on the balance of probability though eg 51:49

 

Screpis may be lieing

 

But I am not sure I have come accross a club where so many people that leave, leave on bad terms.

 

Either we keep on recruiting bad eggs, or there is a common denominator elsewhere....

[Dazo]

He signed a contract he didnt read or understand.

 

Case dismissed m'lord

 

 

To be fair(if true) he was told it was the exact same except for his signing on fee would be spread over some months rather than a 1 off payment. He was told they had no time for it to be faxed over and check by his agent/lawyer/whatever. When you consider he signed on the last day of the transfer window and his desperation to sign for the club(or get awat from kaunas) its fair to assume he took the club at their word regarding the contract. For hearts to have changed the terms without him knowing is a disgrace and surely no one can find this acceptable ?

[Jammy T]

Can you cite a Scots Law case with a similar outcome ?

 

If you give me enough time.....

[Only a Game]

If you give me enough time.....

 

I'm here till the end of the season

[Gambo]

Way may not agree on all things Hearts Gambo but I did think of you as having more empathy in respect of humans generally.

 

So you support Hearts conduct in shafting Screpis? (on the basis he hasnt made the story up)

 

Did he sign the contract?

 

After being found out (allegedly) that he was not actually good enough at Kanaus, he fought tooth and nail (through the press and others) to get his move to Hearts (yes, we were in the wrong by offering the contract, but covered ourselves, so it seems), he was not prepared to quietly get on with the job at Kanaus and prove himself first, he just wanted a move to us. ( a bit like imo the wage theives that Csaba has recently talked about).

 

Now could you help me out in my case versus William Hills, i lost a whole pound at the weekend and even although they let me know in the rules and conditions of my bet that my selection could lose, i could not really be bothered wasting my time reading it. 100/1 shot it was too (prepared to give you 20% on settlement;))

[Beverley]

him and his missus v one Hearts employee

 

balance favours him

 

I'm pretty sure Vlad would have ensured another Hearts rep, maybe even 2, just in case

 

I'm sure Vlad he would also argue "language breakdown, he was told everything, not our fault he didnt understand" and create enough mirk to get out of it

 

Only have to prove it on the balance of probability though eg 51:49

 

Screpis may be lieing

 

But I am not sure I have come accross a club where so many people that leave, leave on bad terms.

 

Either we keep on recruiting bad eggs, or there is a common denominator elsewhere....

 

thats why i think he'll have it covered.

 

on your last sentence there though, thats a big concern too, cos screpis, in no way seems like a "bad egg". i know he as good as forced himself on us eventually but he clearly just wanted to play

[Only a Game]

To be fair(if true) he was told it was the exact same except for his signing on fee would be spread over some months rather than a 1 off payment. He was told they had no time for it to be faxed over and check by his agent/lawyer/whatever. When you consider he signed on the last day of the transfer window and his desperation to sign for the club(or get awat from kaunas) its fair to assume he took the club at their word regarding the contract. For hearts to have changed the terms without him knowing is a disgrace and surely no one can find this acceptable ?

 

All fair enough, but any evidence either way has to be credible and the final decision taken on the "balance of probablitites" (not "beyond a reasonable doubt" as in Scots Criminal Law) It will come down to who's version of events is the most credible and if Hearts are even smelling slightly of pooh on this one I expect they will settle it quickly and quietly with a confidentiality clause and a no admisssion of liability clause attached

[Dazo]

All fair enough, but any evidence either way has to be credible and the final decision taken on the "balance of probablitites" (not "beyond a reasonable doubt" as in Scots Criminal Law) It will come down to who's version of events is the most credible and if Hearts are even smelling slightly of pooh on this one I expect they will settle it quickly and quietly with a confidentiality clause and a no admisssion of liability clause attached

 

Completely agree regarding the settlement mate but it still leaves a bitter taste in the mouth. We can't continually treat players like this and expect not to suffer in the long term.

[Jammy T]

From the 1997 case of Smith v Bank of Scotland (House of Lords) the relevant para being (4):

 

At the time when the First Division refused the wife's reclaiming motion from the interlocutor of the Lord Ordinary, Lord Johnston, dismissing the action the law of Scotland relative to the issue may be summarised as follows:

 

 

(1) A contract of caution although not a contract uberrimae fidei, requires perfect fairness of presentation by the creditor otherwise it cannot be enforced (Bell's Principles of the Law of Scotland, 10th ed. (1899), p. 110, para 251, Gloag and Irvine's Law of Rights in Security (1897), at p. 706).

 

(2) Subject to (1) supra it is well settled that a creditor is under no duty to an intending cautioner to give information as to the debtor's state of indebtedness and he is entitled to assume that the cautioner has informed himself as to the matters material to the obligation which he is about to undertake. (Young v. Clydesdale Bank Ltd. (1889) 17 R. 231, Lord Adam at p. 240, Lord Shand at p. 244).

 

 

(3) The doctrine of undue influence was received from England into Scots law in Gray v. Binny (1879) 7 R. 332.

 

(4) Just as a contract between A and B is reducible by A where B has exerted undue influence in the circumstances described in Gray v. Binny so is it reducible where B by misrepresentation has induced A to contract.

 

I could probably get an almost exactly in point case if you wanted? But you cant get much better than the House of Lords summarising Scots Law on the issue

[Gambo]

I doubt I would have to be honest - I wouldnt have thought a major company would act in such a way Would you expect to win in court then?

 

You are allowed to criticise Romanov** a little you know - it is still possible to be loyal to him You are allowed to read posts and not just posters names

 

Not only that it is illegal....case over then?

 

C'mon c'mon - agree with me (only if you get my pound back).

 

Screpis wasnt even a trouble maker(his continual greeting about not getting a move to Hearts says otherwise IMO) or a high earner

 

**Now we are getting somewhere, this is ALL down to Romanov.

 

.

[Gambo]

From the 1997 case of Smith v Bank of Scotland (House of Lords) the relevant para being (4):

 

At the time when the First Division refused the wife's reclaiming motion from the interlocutor of the Lord Ordinary, Lord Johnston, dismissing the action the law of Scotland relative to the issue may be summarised as follows:

 

 

(1) A contract of caution although not a contract uberrimae fidei, requires perfect fairness of presentation by the creditor otherwise it cannot be enforced (Bell's Principles of the Law of Scotland, 10th ed. (1899), p. 110, para 251, Gloag and Irvine's Law of Rights in Security (1897), at p. 706).

 

(2) Subject to (1) supra it is well settled that a creditor is under no duty to an intending cautioner to give information as to the debtor's state of indebtedness and he is entitled to assume that the cautioner has informed himself as to the matters material to the obligation which he is about to undertake. (Young v. Clydesdale Bank Ltd. (1889) 17 R. 231, Lord Adam at p. 240, Lord Shand at p. 244).

 

 

(3) The doctrine of undue influence was received from England into Scots law in Gray v. Binny (1879) 7 R. 332.

 

(4) Just as a contract between A and B is reducible by A where B has exerted undue influence in the circumstances described in Gray v. Binny so is it reducible where B by misrepresentation has induced A to contract.

 

I could probably get an almost exactly in point case if you wanted? But you cant get much better than the House of Lords summarising Scots Law on the issue

 

 

THe first law i would introduce if in power would be............................

 

Law 1. Common sense must prevail over all other laws*. Not that googly puke you quoted above.

 

 

 

*only after i have got my ?1 back from William Hills though.

[Only a Game]

Completely agree regarding the settlement mate but it still leaves a bitter taste in the mouth. We can't continually treat players like this and expect not to suffer in the long term.

 

I think we're already suffering to be honest.

 

It stinks a bit that the guy says he signed a 3 1/2 year contract with Hearts but when he went back in January the club didnt have it and he had to sign another one before the deadline so he could be registered.

 

Someone will correct me if I am wrong but the only thing you have to do before the deadline is register him as a player, feck all to do with the contract which the SFA arent even interested in seeing. registering a player is a one page single paragraph fax and takes about 3 minutes. (Quicker for us because we have a REALLY GOOD fax machine)

 

Surely when he told his agent he was being asked to sign something he hadnt read ( as he said he did do) the agent should have said "Dont sign it, we have a contract, I will fax Hearts a copy of it" or "Dont sign it, I'll get the club to register you because thats all they have to do at this stage and I'll sort it out later"

 

The contract going missing is a bit funny, but surely easily resolved by the agent saying to Hearts that he had a copy and to fax it right away to them.

[Dazo]

I think we're already suffering to be honest.

 

It stinks a bit that the guy says he signed a 3 1/2 year contract with Hearts but when he went back in January the club didnt have it and he had to sign another one before the deadline so he could be registered.

 

Someone will correct me if I am wrong but the only thing you have to do before the deadline is register him as a player, feck all to do with the contract which the SFA arent even interested in seeing. registering a player is a one page single paragraph fax and takes about 3 minutes. (Quicker for us because we have a REALLY GOOD fax machine)

 

Surely when he told his agent he was being asked to sign something he hadnt read ( as he said he did do) the agent should have said "Dont sign it, we have a contract, I will fax Hearts a copy of it" or "Dont sign it, I'll get the club to register you because thats all they have to do at this stage and I'll sort it out later"

 

The contract going missing is a bit funny, but surely easily resolved by the agent saying to Hearts that he had a copy and to fax it right away to them.

 

 

Again I agree the player or his agent hardly covered themselves in glory over the handling of the matter. Still a bit low for hearts to change the terms and not tell the guy no matter what way you spin IMO.

 

All based on what we have read being the truth of course.

[bighusref]

Right, seems I am gonna be even less popular than I am now (I think it is possible) but I actually do not care.

 

As a football fan that enjoys watching football, I try to only get involved in the inner workings of the club when it hinders us as a club. As a human being, I feel sorry for Screpis, a grown adult that signed a foreign language contract on his own, and his situation . That is about it.

 

Ta ta Fernando!

[Only a Game]

From the 1997 case of Smith v Bank of Scotland (House of Lords) the relevant para being (4):

 

At the time when the First Division refused the wife's reclaiming motion from the interlocutor of the Lord Ordinary, Lord Johnston, dismissing the action the law of Scotland relative to the issue may be summarised as follows:

 

 

(1) A contract of caution although not a contract uberrimae fidei, requires perfect fairness of presentation by the creditor otherwise it cannot be enforced (Bell's Principles of the Law of Scotland, 10th ed. (1899), p. 110, para 251, Gloag and Irvine's Law of Rights in Security (1897), at p. 706).

 

(2) Subject to (1) supra it is well settled that a creditor is under no duty to an intending cautioner to give information as to the debtor's state of indebtedness and he is entitled to assume that the cautioner has informed himself as to the matters material to the obligation which he is about to undertake. (Young v. Clydesdale Bank Ltd. (1889) 17 R. 231, Lord Adam at p. 240, Lord Shand at p. 244).

 

 

(3) The doctrine of undue influence was received from England into Scots law in Gray v. Binny (1879) 7 R. 332.

 

(4) Just as a contract between A and B is reducible by A where B has exerted undue influence in the circumstances described in Gray v. Binny so is it reducible where B by misrepresentation has induced A to contract.

 

I could probably get an almost exactly in point case if you wanted? But you cant get much better than the House of Lords summarising Scots Law on the issue

 

So it would appear that this might help Screpis to invalidate the second contract. Where does that leave him with the "missing" first contract, because he'll need that to prove that there were alterations from the 1st contract to the second one that he wasnt told about.

 

And if he or his agent have a copy of the first contract why on earth did his agent advise him to sign a second one on 31 January?

[Jammy T]

Completely agree regarding the settlement mate but it still leaves a bitter taste in the mouth. We can't continually treat players like this and expect not to suffer in the long term.

 

Precisely

 

And I can entirely accept that people like gambo get hacked off at me for maybe constantly highlighting issues I have with Romanov

 

But there must surely be circumstances where people have to accept he has acted poorly and to the detriment of players / the club and therefore the fans.

 

I accept, for example, he has done some good. Credibility will arise for the opposition when they admit that he has done some bad.

 

Last little summary on the scots law of misrepresentation:

 

Misrepresentation (induced error)

More likely to be a possibility, compared to uninduced error considered in Section A above.

The requirement of inducement:

?Without venturing to affirm that there can be no exceptions to the rule I think it may safely be said that in the case of onerous contracts reduced to writing the erroneous belief of one of the contracting parties in regard to the nature of the obligations which he has undertaken will not be sufficient to give him the right [to rescind], unless such belief has been induced by representations, fraudulent or not, of the other party to the contract.?

Stewart v Kennedy (1890) 17 R (HL) 25 at 29, per Lord Watson

?Error becomes essential whenever it is shown that but for it one of the parties would have declined to contract. He cannot rescind unless his error was induced by the representations of the other contracting party, or of his agent, made in the course of negotiation, and with reference to the subject matter of the contract. If his error is proved to have been so induced, the fact that the misleading representations were made in good faith affords no defence??

Menzies v Menzies (1893) 20 R (HL) 108 at 142 per Lord Watson

The remedies available for misrepresentation depend upon the level of knowledge of the party who has made the misrepresentation. Three levels:

Copyright remains with the authors. The information reflects the law as at the date of the conference.

7

(i) innocent:

the party making the misrepresentation honestly believed that the statement made was true;

(ii) negligent:

the person making the statement failed to take reasonable care in making the representation and was in the circumstances under a duty to do so, see e.g. Esso Petroleum Co v Mardon [1976] QB 801; 2 All ER 5

(iii) fraudulent:

the representation is made intentionally, with the knowledge that it is untrue.

 

Remedies: reduction of the contract is the only remedy for innocent misrepresentation. This will only be granted if the parties can be put back into their pre-contractual position (restitutio in integrum.) If the misrepresentation was either negligent or fraudulent, damages will also be available. Damages for negligent misrepresentation are available by virtue of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1985, s10.