PCB to demand around $70 million from BCCI as compensation

[RISING SUN]

The best thing will be to wait for the verdict in the case as the judges will be better placed to see if it is a legally binding contract or not

That will never come as they have been threatening since last 3 years without actually committing for a case seriously. Just waiting for elections to get over, so that again new government can take initiative to restore the games. Thank you.

 

[oOo]

@Kash_Ninja There is nothing technically wrong with your assertion, however I need to remind you of two critical things:
1- More than often MoU lack some aspect or other to qualify as a proper contract. There are too many loopholes left in the language, intentionally.
2- Intent of agreement is gauged by the name both parties chose to call the agreement, which is here called "MoU".

Rest, whatever we argue here, only a fully qualified attorney can pass on the judgement. Have you read the MoU just in case?

 

[Flash_Ninja]

IF A MOU IS WORDED AS CONTRACT, IT'S A CONTRACT, NOT MOU. How much will you keep dancing here and there? Reporters especially from professional sports sites like Cricinfo don't play zukini with news.

According to who?

If the MoU contains the terms or elements of a contract, then it can also be a legally enforceable contract. MoU and contract are just names, like vehicle and car, they can both sometimes crossover and be the same thing.

Cricinfo isn't exactly the New York Times, they are just a cricket news website, their journalists are just sports reporters and might not know specific legal terms, or the details of this agreement.

@Kash_Ninja There is nothing technically wrong with your assertion, however I need to remind you of two critical things:
1- More than often MoU lack some aspect or other to qualify as a proper contract. There are too many loopholes left in the language, intentionally.
2- Intent of agreement is gauged by the name both parties chose to call the agreement, which is here called "MoU".

Rest, whatever we argue here, only a fully qualified attorney can pass on the judgement. Have you read the MoU just in case?

1- True, but only someone that has read the agreement can actually judge whether this is a legal contract. I dont think PCB would actually try and sue over an agreement with very vague or absent terminology, so there must be truth to the idea that this MoU was somewhat legally binding.

2- Most MOU's ive seen arent really this specific in detail, and usually just contain an agreement or something to meet up and further solidify the details in an actual contract. This MOU contains strangely specific details like the frequency and number of games, the venues, the dates, and some other terms and conditions, which would be pointless to include in an MoU unless both parties understood that this was a very basic "draft" of a future contract, or that it was somewhat legally binding.

I also dont think BCCI would sign this agreement unless they were even somewhat committed to abiding by the conditions in this MoU, because they would have just hammered out such details in an actually full fledged contract. Also, BCCI's argument so far is that they didn't receive permission from their government, why would they say this when they could just claim that the MoU has no legal standing?

Like I said from my previous posts, I haven't read the agreement and am just speaking from a hypothetical perspective.

 

[oOo]

According to who?

If the MoU contains the terms or elements of a contract, then it can also be a legally enforceable contract. MoU and contract are just names, like vehicle and car, they can both sometimes crossover and be the same thing.

Cricinfo isn't exactly the New York Times, they are just a cricket news website, their journalists are just sports reporters and might not know specific legal terms, or the details of this agreement.



1- True, but only someone that has read the agreement can actually judge whether this is a legal contract. I dont think PCB would actually try and sue over an agreement with very vague or absent terminology, so there must be truth to the idea that this MoU was somewhat legally binding.

2- Most MOU's ive seen arent really this specific in detail, and usually just contain an agreement or something to meet up and further solidify the details in an actual contract. This MOU contains strangely specific details like the frequency and number of games, the venues, the dates, and some other terms and conditions, which would be pointless to include in an MoU unless both parties understood that this was a very basic "draft" of a future contract, or that it was somewhat legally binding.

I also dont think BCCI would sign this agreement unless they were even somewhat committed to abiding by the conditions in this MoU, because they would have just hammered out such details in an actually full fledged contract. Also, BCCI's argument so far is that they didn't receive permission from their government, why would they say this when they could just claim that the MoU has no legal standing?

Like I said from my previous posts, I haven't read the agreement and am just speaking from a hypothetical perspective.

I think both of us are on similar if not same page, no point in going in circles. Only a qualified read can tell more.

 

[wiseone2]

The select few who reads 'the Hindu' seems to be the secular, educated and belongs to niche class of Indians.

Same article appeared in TOI, times of India, read it and then read the comments, almost all of the comments were full of hatred, puerile, using abusive language for Pakistan...senile and full of vitriol.

Who belongs to the class or caste who reads this TOI newspaper online edition. And this is a rule and not an exception whenever some news is reported about Pakistan(they will make sure that the news is a negative one).

@JD_In

The Hindu is based in Chennai. They have significant circulation in other cities. I am not sure how they stack up these days They exposed the Bofors scam in the 1980s. They are run by a Tamil Brahmin clan.