Reading the Guardian article about Messi and his release clause, I see that his legal team will be trying to argue that the impact of Covid on the season will have served to push the deadline on his release clause back to August 31st, and it got me thinking.
It's a while since I studied law, but I understand that one of the key tenets of English contract law is intent.
i.e. if there is an argument over the enforceability of a contract, the question of intent can often be used to determine the true nature of the contract.
Surely it could have been argued that the 'intent' behind footballing contracts (playing staff, sponsorship deals, kit manufacture etc.,) running until 31st June(?) of the year in question is so that they run to the end of a particular season? If that's the case, then couldn't a particularly litigious team or sponsor have claimed possible breach of contract, i.e. in the case of Chelsea starting their new sponsorship deal with Three, or Ryan Fraser refusing to play for Bournemouth?
Either way I wouldn't be surprised if, after the events of this season, future contracts will be specified to run 'until the end of season x' as opposed to finishing on a fixed date. |  |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
