Comments Thread For: Deontay Wilder vs. Tyson Fury is a 50-50 Deal, Says Frank Warren

[Robertthebruce]

Your a legend mate

[Redgloveman]

Pre-contractual representations are meaningless if they're not in the contract. Hearn acting like the fight will be next is irrelevant if the contract states nothing of the sort. This is why Wilder didn't sign. He wanted assurances the fight would be next. Hearn said give me a few days. A few days went by and then Hearn finally admitted the fight wouldn't be until April.

Pre-contractual representations ARE in the contract. They form part of the contract even if they aren't in the written contract document itself. Admittedly, it's one of the areas where contract law gets hazy and difficult - but unless the contract document has what's known as an "entire agreement clause", pre-contractual representations are enforceable at law.

Obviously I haven't seen the contract itself, so it's difficult to comment with authority on what the contract does or doesn't say, but if you've got a guy on record repeatedly saying that the Joshua v Wilder fight is next it would be difficult to back out of.

Don't get the impression that I think Hearn's innocent - he's not in the least. But this is just one issue among many.

[N/A]

Pre-contractual representations ARE in the contract. They form part of the contract even if they aren't in the written contract document itself. Admittedly, it's one of the areas where contract law gets hazy and difficult - but unless the contract document has what's known as an "entire agreement clause", pre-contractual representations are enforceable at law.

Of course contracts at this level have entire agreement clauses.

Hearn saying he wants the fight next is not something you can enforce if you sign a contract that makes no mention of the fight being next. Hearn claimed he decided to fight Povetkin next and they could do the fight in April. What can you do to stop that? Nothing.

[Redgloveman]

Of course contracts at this level have entire agreement clauses.

Hearn saying he wants the fight next is not something you can enforce if you sign a contract that makes no mention of the fight being next. Hearn claimed he decided to fight Povetkin next and they could do the fight in April. What can you do to stop that? Nothing.

As I've already mentioned, the contract is more than the contractual document, that's been the law for a long long time now.

Hearn's still made a contractual representation by stating (on record) that the Wilder fight would be Joshua's next fight. If Finkel is induced to enter the contract as a result of a contractual misrepresentation then he can sue Hearn for (you guessed it) misrepresentation.

So all this "it wasn't expressed in the contract that it would be next" isn't an issue. What's more, that's the kind of term that you would simply draw to the other side's attention and get inserted into the contract which would take around 10 minutes of work; not a deal-breaker, particularly when you know the other party is already in agreement.

Hearn is a snake, but don't go thinking that Finkel is totally innocent too.

[Raggamuffin]

As long as both are happy with the money, boxing fans are good. Fury stepped up to the plate when the stiff stoic coward wouldn't, and plans on coming to Vegas. Big prop. Thank you Tyson. Buck shot Bo Bo Bo lol...

[JWHardin]

You know how hypocritical and dishonest this post sounds but your watch dog instincts want allow you stop yourself from posting it. Media manipulation and gridlocked traffic seem to have a similar effect on the human psyche to one another. Seemingly rational people will behave in the most irrational ways when exposed to either.

Poor attempt to sound intelligent. Your post makes no sense at all. If you don't like what I post why not let me know what is innacurate? You can't, because what I say is fact. Blabber on dude.

[JWHardin]

That means you are indirectly saying Wilder didn’t sign because he didn’t get 50-50. Regardless of course he would sign if he was offered 50/50, he would be a fool if he didn’t . However, you and every Wilder supporter can at least admit he doesn’t deserve that.

What I mean is that Wilder was ok if the fight was this year. Hearn would never confirm that, so he said FU.

[markther]

So how does Wilder deserve 50% against Joshua if Wilder is giving a guy 50% that’s been out of boxing for almost 3 years and just fought 2 bums for a tune up. Just a question. Honestly trying to figure out how does this help with his negotiations if he ever fights Joshua. How will Hearn try to use this?

[peplz]

Poor attempt to sound intelligent. Your post makes no sense at all. If you don't like what I post why not let me know what is innacurate? You can't, because what I say is fact. Blabber on dude.

Hypocritical and dishonest. You can add inaccurate to the list too.

[peplz]

What I mean is that Wilder was ok if the fight was this year. Hearn would never confirm that, so he said FU.

This is a straight up lie. Shelly Finkel himself admitted on record that he has it "in writing" that the fight would be next. Hey but don't let silly things like FACTS get in the way of your Wilder Watch Dog duty.