en-us https://www.intensedebate.com/users/2239494 Comments by Slipcatcher http://www.trinidadexpress.com/sports/Players-must--give-reasons-for--pullout-says-Ganga-280261352.html#IDComment896366449 ALI,The ICC say they can't intervene unless they are asked by the parties to intervene. When the issue broke ant talk of lawsuit abound, I made the statement that "BCCI and WICB are natural allies" BCCI would sue WICB. I even added that they were even careful to say "suspend" the tours to WI rather than the word "cancelled" which leaves no room to wiggle. Those statements brought me so much "thumbs downs" that that was one instance that I was happy that the Express did not select the "middle finger" for to register disagreement. The thisg is that India not only would not refer WICB to the ICC, they would eat the 65M and retract the "suspend" on the WI tour and get back in bed with WICB. They need WICB just as much as WICB need them. When Sacchin was going out, who did they turn to? not AUS, not ENG, not any of the others but to WI, and they did it knowing how bad WI were and WI provided proof. Fri, 24 Oct 2014 14:53:37 +0000 http://www.trinidadexpress.com/sports/Players-must--give-reasons-for--pullout-says-Ganga-280261352.html#IDComment896366449 http://www.trinidadexpress.com/sports/Players-must--give-reasons-for--pullout-says-Ganga-280261352.html#IDComment896353645 ALI, no I did not read it so let me take a look. Fri, 24 Oct 2014 14:31:41 +0000 http://www.trinidadexpress.com/sports/Players-must--give-reasons-for--pullout-says-Ganga-280261352.html#IDComment896353645 http://www.trinidadexpress.com/sports/Players-must--give-reasons-for--pullout-says-Ganga-280261352.html#IDComment896352634 SMALLI, thank you for the confirmation on Samuels' non-membership in wipa. If the statement comes from you, I know that I can trust it. You are right, some elements here hate the truth especially when it comes from you. One minute I see your posts and the next minute they have disappeared. I am glad to see that they did not succeed in chasing you. Fri, 24 Oct 2014 14:29:43 +0000 http://www.trinidadexpress.com/sports/Players-must--give-reasons-for--pullout-says-Ganga-280261352.html#IDComment896352634 http://www.trinidadexpress.com/sports/Players-must--give-reasons-for--pullout-says-Ganga-280261352.html#IDComment895942700 BLOGI if what you say about Samuels' non-membership in WIPA is true, to my way of thinking, that reflects very well on Samuels, on his character, on his self-belief, his self-reliance. He does not look for the security of the crowd to share the spoils. He negotiates his own incentives and trusts his talents to deliver. That could very well explain why his performances in the 3 ODI's played so far exceeded the performances of those who looked to share the spoils, whether they had earned their fair share of it or not. Samuels, if what you say is true, may have negotiated for himself a contract full of incentives, which was why he set out on a run spree in the first 3 ODI's of 16, 126* and 112 for an average of 127. No other person even came close to that level performance. Fri, 24 Oct 2014 02:20:57 +0000 http://www.trinidadexpress.com/sports/Players-must--give-reasons-for--pullout-says-Ganga-280261352.html#IDComment895942700 http://www.trinidadexpress.com/sports/DAMAGE-CONTROL-279997052.html#IDComment895867433 Boy Sarwan eh get a penny of that 100K. Thu, 23 Oct 2014 23:29:00 +0000 http://www.trinidadexpress.com/sports/DAMAGE-CONTROL-279997052.html#IDComment895867433 http://www.trinidadexpress.com/sports/DAMAGE-CONTROL-279997052.html#IDComment895197582 A coward doesn't challenge God. Cowards like you don't challenge him, no mater how he makes a lifetime jacka.ss out of you. Thu, 23 Oct 2014 02:08:07 +0000 http://www.trinidadexpress.com/sports/DAMAGE-CONTROL-279997052.html#IDComment895197582 http://www.trinidadexpress.com/sports/DAMAGE-CONTROL-279997052.html#IDComment895195967 ZIG, what difference it makes? they are all losers going nowhere up the rankings, so who cares who I pick? Thu, 23 Oct 2014 02:03:58 +0000 http://www.trinidadexpress.com/sports/DAMAGE-CONTROL-279997052.html#IDComment895195967 http://www.trinidadexpress.com/sports/DAMAGE-CONTROL-279997052.html#IDComment895183658 Thanks Thu, 23 Oct 2014 01:33:29 +0000 http://www.trinidadexpress.com/sports/DAMAGE-CONTROL-279997052.html#IDComment895183658 http://www.trinidadexpress.com/sports/DAMAGE-CONTROL-279997052.html#IDComment895152552 Why don't you say which one they paid? Thu, 23 Oct 2014 00:17:07 +0000 http://www.trinidadexpress.com/sports/DAMAGE-CONTROL-279997052.html#IDComment895152552 http://www.trinidadexpress.com/sports/DAMAGE-CONTROL-279997052.html#IDComment895109451 Yes, a contract must have those 3 elements mentioned. Consideration does not have to be money or object, it could also be a promise as is the case of some contracts between merchants. Even in your example of the principal and his agent. The principal offered the house to the agent to sell it. The agent accepted the offer with the promise to sell it. That promise constitutes consideration. They have a contract. Also, between merchants - An offer to buy or sell goods in a signed writing, is not revocable for lack of consideration for the time stated. If no time is stated, it shall be for a reasonable time" What is a reasonable time depends on the industry. For instance it would be different for the , say, fish industry and the lumbar industry Wed, 22 Oct 2014 22:28:50 +0000 http://www.trinidadexpress.com/sports/DAMAGE-CONTROL-279997052.html#IDComment895109451 http://www.trinidadexpress.com/sports/DAMAGE-CONTROL-279997052.html#IDComment895003030 STEPHEN, the better question is "which judgement have WICB ever paid? Wed, 22 Oct 2014 18:57:24 +0000 http://www.trinidadexpress.com/sports/DAMAGE-CONTROL-279997052.html#IDComment895003030 http://www.trinidadexpress.com/sports/DAMAGE-CONTROL-279997052.html#IDComment894988328 STEPHEN, to bad you know it's rubbish but you don't know why. Tou are an Oxfordian, remember? at least so you say. Wed, 22 Oct 2014 18:31:34 +0000 http://www.trinidadexpress.com/sports/DAMAGE-CONTROL-279997052.html#IDComment894988328 http://www.trinidadexpress.com/sports/DAMAGE-CONTROL-279997052.html#IDComment894987217 ALI, needless to say, "yes, for WI" unless there are such restrictions in their agreement. Well I don't really see any daylight between the two of us with regard to the scenario presented. Wed, 22 Oct 2014 18:29:23 +0000 http://www.trinidadexpress.com/sports/DAMAGE-CONTROL-279997052.html#IDComment894987217 http://www.trinidadexpress.com/sports/DAMAGE-CONTROL-279997052.html#IDComment894893565 LARA, wonders never cease in truth eh. You and SALTY find common ground. Wed, 22 Oct 2014 15:54:21 +0000 http://www.trinidadexpress.com/sports/DAMAGE-CONTROL-279997052.html#IDComment894893565 http://www.trinidadexpress.com/sports/DAMAGE-CONTROL-279997052.html#IDComment894883528 ALI even it you are correct in saying that the players were pulled before they managed to strike, WICB have a right to say where and when they work. They have no claim against WICB for pulling them. The BCCI is the only other body involved that has a claim, and that claim is against WICB irrespective of whether WICB pulled the players first, or the players had struck (not sure of the past tense here) first. Wed, 22 Oct 2014 15:37:35 +0000 http://www.trinidadexpress.com/sports/DAMAGE-CONTROL-279997052.html#IDComment894883528 http://www.trinidadexpress.com/sports/DAMAGE-CONTROL-279997052.html#IDComment894857146 DOC, you see these "fanciful dreams" that you imputing to me - my advice to you is to go back up Curepe Junction and fly you kite there. Don't come here with that. Wed, 22 Oct 2014 14:52:33 +0000 http://www.trinidadexpress.com/sports/DAMAGE-CONTROL-279997052.html#IDComment894857146 http://www.trinidadexpress.com/sports/DAMAGE-CONTROL-279997052.html#IDComment894832651 I don't agree with the conclusion that you arrived at in the example in your 2nd paragraph, where you say that the contract is void. The contract is not void. The agent is clearly in breach of his contract, and his principal can sue him. That house was legally sold to the buyer according to your example. The principal is liable for the misdeeds of his agent, so the buyer has a claim against the principal. This is an "arms length" transaction . According to your scenario, there was no bubbul here. The principal must sign over the deed to the buyer and go after his agent for the other 500K. The parties have satisfied all 3 elements of a contract (1)offer (2) acceptance (3) consideration so this contract is good unless you can prove fraud which was not mentioned in your scenario, Wed, 22 Oct 2014 14:09:31 +0000 http://www.trinidadexpress.com/sports/DAMAGE-CONTROL-279997052.html#IDComment894832651 http://www.trinidadexpress.com/sports/DAMAGE-CONTROL-279997052.html#IDComment894819457 KRIS, I don't know which rock in you was under that you didn't hear Ricky throw out in the POS high Court all the judgement that how-they-call-im gave Ramnarine when Ramnarine was in bed with him. WICB eh pay a penny of those 19 judgements either to WIPA or to the players, not a cent. All 19 got thrown out by Ricky. Wed, 22 Oct 2014 13:45:59 +0000 http://www.trinidadexpress.com/sports/DAMAGE-CONTROL-279997052.html#IDComment894819457 http://www.trinidadexpress.com/sports/DAMAGE-CONTROL-279997052.html#IDComment894816318 But if the contract say that the 35K is to be replaced "by revenue from another source", no source is specified, no time was imposed to identify the source, so explain how how is WICB in breach. WICB could come to T&T and run a bubbul and get the money if they want. How do you know that the revenue would not come from the revenue generated from the new regional set-up? or the money generated from the CPL contract or from new sponsors. To claim breach, you have to prove breach. It is like proving fraud - you have to prove all the elements of fraud. Not just the unauthorised taking but also "intent". Without intent, you have no case. So in the case of the MoU, how could you prove that the revenue would not come from another source or sources? Wed, 22 Oct 2014 13:40:33 +0000 http://www.trinidadexpress.com/sports/DAMAGE-CONTROL-279997052.html#IDComment894816318 http://www.trinidadexpress.com/sports/DAMAGE-CONTROL-279997052.html#IDComment894805919 Fazeer say that Friday Ramnarine was on TV^ down there. I am sure that you heard what he said so why don't you share it with the post. Do worry about what Holding say, we read it on Cricinfo. And Ramnarine so hypocrite, he went on TV^ to discuss the facts of the issue between Bravo vs WIPAand WICB and he never disclosed that he is the agent of Dwayne and Darren Bravo. He never even disclosed that he want his job back from Hinds, which is why he underminding Hinds behind the scene. Wed, 22 Oct 2014 13:21:47 +0000 http://www.trinidadexpress.com/sports/DAMAGE-CONTROL-279997052.html#IDComment894805919