y va marquer wrote:
How can you comment with such absolute authority lagos, on a contract that you've neither seen nor studied in detail, and then conclude that the ambiguity is a deliberate ploy by an unscrupulous lawyer taking advantage of a client who "probably can't read the contract"
So many assumptions based on such biases.
The bottom line is
1) Taylor has seen the contract and commented on the "clause"
2) I did say it was a flippant comment
3) The fact that a clause exists shows it is clear Suarez wanted a release clause and his lawyer knows that. It's not rocket science, an escape clause either says you can escape or it doesn't, what exactly is the purpose of a "talk" clause? 😆 Suarez obviously asked for something (that is really very simple) in his contract that turns out not to be there, the question is why is it not there and why was he led to believe it was? A talk clause is exactly the kind of nonsense an unscrupulous lawyer will insert knowing it has no effect just so he can tell his client who he knows can't read oh year I've got the clause in. If his lawyer thought the clause was watertight he needs to be disbarred for incompetence. If he knew it wasn't why did he lead his client to believe it was?
ofcourse I am speculating but the way I see it, Suarez asked for an escape clause, Liverpool, with more experienced lawyers refused, Suarez's Lawyer to saved face inserted a wishy washy clause that he surely must have known is useless and then proceeds in the usual lawyer speak (the one where one where you talk a whole lot reassuring the client carefully navigating the boundary of lie and truth in a way that would have confused an non English speaker like Suarez) to lead his client to beleive that he has a clause.
