Anyone Understand the Term Force Majuere

and in particular its legal meaning in a contract when used or expressed as an impossibility.

it means that both parties are free form their contractual obligations if an unforseen event happens. eg if you were delivering goods to some other country and war was declared in that country

it means that both parties are free form their contractual obligations if an unforseen event happens. eg if you were delivering goods to some other country and war was declared in that country

So the war made it impossible to deliver the goods

and in particular its legal meaning in a contract when used or expressed as an impossibility.

In my industry Construction Project Management it is generally accepted to mean an "exceptional event or circumstance which is beyond either party's (to the contract) control" although "cannot be foreseen" is often added. This is where the fun the starts as the "Engineer" to the Contract often has to determin whether said event/circumstance is in fact beyond control or could not be easily foreseen. If you're writing a Contract for the Civil Engineering industry is often better to use the FIDIC suite of Contracts as this "risk" is more easily controlled/defined.

That advice will cost you 1200 Euro Mr Castleblue

it means that both parties are free form their contractual obligations if an unforseen event happens. eg if you were delivering goods to some other country and war was declared in that country

So the war made it impossible to deliver the goods

It basically means anything that happens as an Act of God, but in saying that it would I believe cover a war (How that is an act of God I don't know).....

it means that both parties are free form their contractual obligations if an unforseen event happens. eg if you were delivering goods to some other country and war was declared in that country

So the war made it impossible to deliver the goods

It basically means anything that happens as an Act of God, but in saying that it would I believe cover a war (How that is an act of God I don't know).....

There's a really good film with Billy Connelly about "Act of god" where he sue's the pope as his insurance would not pay out when his fishing boat was struck by lightening.

Can't for the life of me remember the title though.

In my old industry (finance markets) it simply meant Act Of God.

it can be anything 'outside the reasonable control' of the parties to the contract. The parties can agree what is and isn't included in the definition but Acts or God 'always' are.

Can it be reasonably used to argue that the terms are so overwhemingly favourable to one party in a contract that it would make it impossible for the 2nd party to a contract to be able to influence the disposal of say an asset.

Or do you think that is a matter of legal intrepretation or precedent.

Or basically, to spell it out reading between the lines...

QPR are arguing that whilst there's third party ownership (basically admitting charge) it's not *really* third party ownership as they are claiming third party had no influence really?

Castleblue-What do you do for a living?You come across as very intelligent,when talking about these rules and regulations.

Or basically, to spell it out reading between the lines...

QPR are arguing that whilst there's third party ownership (basically admitting charge) it's not *really* third party ownership as they are claiming third party had no influence really?

Could be the biggest load of bollocks ever put on a messageboard but I have been told QPR have put up a brilliant LEGAL defence to this charge and have used UK LAW & Legal Precedent to back it up.

Apparently the FA are running in circles trying to find Legal opinion to undue QPR defence lets hope sometime soon they get the clarification they need to put an end to this.

As I say it could be absolute bollocks but then again it could be 100% accurate I honestly don't know.

Can it be reasonably used to argue that the terms are so overwhemingly favourable to one party in a contract that it would make it impossible for the 2nd party to a contract to be able to influence the disposal of say an asset.

Or do you think that is a matter of legal intrepretation or precedent.

I really would not have thought so, because I cannot see an Act of God having any bearing on Terms beings favourable to one party in a contract. The restriction appears down to terms that were already agreed between the parties, and Force Majeur appears to have no impact on the restriction applied (Whatever the restrictions are).

Would need a bit more detail though?

and in particular its legal meaning in a contract when used or expressed as an impossibility.

I CANT EVEN SAY IT

So in laymans term what we can dissect from this is;

QPR knowingly played a player who was owned by a third party and then falsified documents to cover it up, buts it's not their fault because it was an act of god......

Oh that's fine then, playoffs it is!

Or basically, to spell it out reading between the lines...

QPR are arguing that whilst there's third party ownership (basically admitting charge) it's not *really* third party ownership as they are claiming third party had no influence really?

Could be the biggest load of bollocks ever put on a messageboard but I have been told QPR have put up a brilliant LEGAL defence to this charge and have used UK LAW & Legal Precedent to back it up.

Apparently the FA are running in circles trying to find Legal opinion to undue QPR defence lets hope sometime soon they get the clarification they need to put an end to this.

As I say it could be absolute bollocks but then again it could be 100% accurate I honestly don't know.

Don't want to worry anyone, but isn't that the scenario with the ranson mortgages that ridsdale took out?

Don't want to worry anyone, but isn't that the scenario with the ranson mortgages that ridsdale took out?

Nope.

Which players does Ranson hold the economic rights to? None of them is the answer.

A Guardian journo got a hard on over one reported clause without understanding what it meant.