Billy Graham to sue Ricky Hatton?

[The Weebler II]

Originally Posted by ACHlLLES

Well, a verbal agreement doesn't mean much. He lost already, and pretty stupid to sue Hatton because not only has he already lost this case, but I doubt they will be friends any longer. Fathers don't sue sons.

it's not as clear cut as that.

[The_Bringer]

Originally Posted by ACHlLLES

Well, a verbal agreement doesn't mean much. He lost already, and pretty stupid to sue Hatton because not only has he already lost this case, but I doubt they will be friends any longer. Fathers don't sue sons.

Love the sig collection. Dreamcast was the ****.

Ryo Hazuki delivering the tornado kick to that dude's face.

[ACHlLLES]

Originally Posted by The Weebler II

it's not as clear cut as that.

Depends on the judge, if I was the judge I'd be like oh well you ****ed up thats your loss. And I'm pretty sure most judges are like that, unless ricky ends up with a ****ed up judge.

Originally Posted by The_Bringer

Love the sig collection. Dreamcast was the ****.

Ryo Hazuki delivering the tornado kick to that dude's face.

It needed more games to be the best console ever, but Dreamcast totally ****s on Saturn. But I never even owned a saturn but heard it was one of the worst consoles ever.

[Ray*]

Verbal agreement??? This would be throw out of court....What happen to all we we're mate stuff from 2 years ago on the 24/7 show??? This is what TV camera does to some people...

[The_Bringer]

Originally Posted by The Weebler II

it's not as clear cut as that.

I'm not sure how Court works in the U.K.

But here, in America, a verbal agreement amounts to nothing more than heresay, and is no grounds whatsoever for deciding a case.

It's inadmissable.

[mrpain81]

Graham is a fuking parasite, he showed up to Hatton's last fight getting drunk 24/7 at the MGM bars just looking for attention. If he sues Hatton it will show he's just a gold digging has been, he should go die in a cave.

[The Weebler II]

Originally Posted by The_Bringer

I'm not sure how Court works in the U.K.

But here, in America, a verbal agreement amounts to nothing more than heresay, and is no grounds whatsoever for deciding a case.

It's inadmissable.

I think some weight is attributed to their prior course of dealing or reliance on a promise to detriment or something, I can't remember the precise details so might be mistaken.

[eno666]

Frank Warren's claims of Joe Calzaghe owing him through a verbal contract were not seen as legitimate by the judge, so this may be the same situation.