Hatton letters made public read them here.

REAL_DEAL · Post by **REAL_DEAL** » 16 Sep 2005, 14:25

contract page 1

http://www.allegedly.tv/fw4/contract1.pdf

contract page 2

http://www.allegedly.tv/fw4/contract2.pdf

Letter page 1,2,3

http://www.allegedly.tv/fw4/page1.pdf
http://www.allegedly.tv/fw4/page2.pdf
http://www.allegedly.tv/fw4/page3.pdf

Loynesy · Post by **Loynesy** » 16 Sep 2005, 15:50

Interesting, I'll read them properly over the weekend, but my intial legal analysis is that it is a pretty shoddy way of bringing in other terms into a contract (particulalry when some of the things in the Olivera contract contradict what is in the letter), counterbalancing that is that Hatton has signed an agreement which refers to another documents, so, Warren's lawyers will be arguing if he objected, the refernce to the letter should have been struck out before signing the contract.

I would imagine there are far more documents and correspondnece out there which Frank is not showing us, in paricualr, I am surprised there is not a Confidentiality Agreemnt in place between Sports Network and Hatton.

Loynesy · Post by **Loynesy** » 16 Sep 2005, 15:52

Think I favour Ricky, but again, will have a proper analysis over the weekend.

JimStone · Post by **JimStone** » 16 Sep 2005, 16:43

As I see it, that letter means fornicate all. A legally binding contract has to be signed by both parties and their respective witnesses. Giving a signature on the recorded delivery thing means nish...

...Only if the Tszyu contract - or another contract - makes specific reference to the (now infamous) December letter - and the Hatton's acceptance of its contents - will Frank have a decent case, in my opinion.

Having said that, I'd personally like Ricky to fight for Sports Network then we can all watch him on ITV.

Phenomenal-Nutrition · Post by **Phenomenal-Nutrition** » 16 Sep 2005, 19:09

I scanned through the contract and I could be wrong but didn't see the mention of any letter, which surely makes the letter irrelevant

Oh yes, now we all know where Ricky lives, very professional

hitman_hatton1 · Post by **hitman_hatton1** » 16 Sep 2005, 19:28

Phenomenal-Nutrition wrote:I scanned through the contract and I could be wrong but didn't see the mention of any letter, which surely makes the letter irrelevant

Oh yes, now we all know where Ricky lives, very professional

don't go stalking him now.

its a shame its come to this. shit timing as well what with warren going over to itv.

Phenomenal-Nutrition · Post by **Phenomenal-Nutrition** » 16 Sep 2005, 20:01

hitman_hatton1 wrote:
Phenomenal-Nutrition wrote:I scanned through the contract and I could be wrong but didn't see the mention of any letter, which surely makes the letter irrelevant

Oh yes, now we all know where Ricky lives, very professional
don't go stalking him now.

its a shame its come to this. shit timing as well what with warren going over to itv.

Do you think Witter move in the neighbourhood and reckon hes the hardest on his street.

He probably can't afford the house prices round Rickys end

Max Molyneux · Post by **Max Molyneux** » 16 Sep 2005, 20:40

FlawedGenius wrote:As I see it, that letter means fornicate all. A legally binding contract has to be signed by both parties and their respective witnesses. Giving a signature on the recorded delivery thing means nish...

...Only if the Tszyu contract - or another contract - makes specific reference to the (now infamous) December letter - and the Hatton's acceptance of its contents - will Frank have a decent case, in my opinion.

Having said that, I'd personally like Ricky to fight for Sports Network then we can all watch him on ITV.

Did have a signiture by both parties and a witness too though.

Lets hope Hatton doesn't do a Naz or what happened to Conteh.

Manos de Oro · Post by **Manos de Oro** » 17 Sep 2005, 04:59

Phenomenal-Nutrition wrote:I scanned through the contract and I could be wrong but didn't see the mention of any letter, which surely makes the letter irrelevant

Clause 5 (and subsequent 4 and 3) at the top of the second page of the letter is linked to article 2 of the contract.

rhino222 · Post by **rhino222** » 17 Sep 2005, 05:14

very very unprofessional of warren to publically air these..

but they dont seem to hold much substance. the letter is not signed by hatton. so as an add on to a contract it is non existant.

nice of warren to promise hatton 4 weeks notice of opponents for world title fights...no wonder we get loads of TBA's

Phenomenal-Nutrition · Post by **Phenomenal-Nutrition** » 17 Sep 2005, 05:28

Manos de Oro wrote:
Phenomenal-Nutrition wrote:I scanned through the contract and I could be wrong but didn't see the mention of any letter, which surely makes the letter irrelevant
Clause 5 (and subsequent 4 and 3) at the top of the second page of the letter is linked to article 2 of the contract.

Can't believe I missed that,

so from herein it gets interesting

JimStone · Post by **JimStone** » 17 Sep 2005, 06:16

Max Molyneux wrote:
FlawedGenius wrote:As I see it, that letter means fornicate all. A legally binding contract has to be signed by both parties and their respective witnesses. Giving a signature on the recorded delivery thing means nish...

...Only if the Tszyu contract - or another contract - makes specific reference to the (now infamous) December letter - and the Hatton's acceptance of its contents - will Frank have a decent case, in my opinion.

Having said that, I'd personally like Ricky to fight for Sports Network then we can all watch him on ITV.
Did have a signiture by both parties and a witness too though.

Where is the proof of that, has that been produced?

JimStone · Post by **JimStone** » 17 Sep 2005, 06:23

Phenomenal-Nutrition wrote:
Manos de Oro wrote:
Phenomenal-Nutrition wrote:I scanned through the contract and I could be wrong but didn't see the mention of any letter, which surely makes the letter irrelevant
Clause 5 (and subsequent 4 and 3) at the top of the second page of the letter is linked to article 2 of the contract.
Can't believe I missed that, so from herein it gets interesting

No. As I see it, The contract was signed and sealed before the letter was sent. In my opinion, the letter is therefore irrelevant, unless it was agreed to and signed by Hatton (or his representative) and a witness. I can't see any signatures. Maybe Frank hasn't released them into the public domain as of yet, but you'd have thought he would've.

Max Molyneux · Post by **Max Molyneux** » 17 Sep 2005, 08:53

FlawedGenius wrote:
Max Molyneux wrote:
FlawedGenius wrote:As I see it, that letter means fornicate all. A legally binding contract has to be signed by both parties and their respective witnesses. Giving a signature on the recorded delivery thing means nish...

...Only if the Tszyu contract - or another contract - makes specific reference to the (now infamous) December letter - and the Hatton's acceptance of its contents - will Frank have a decent case, in my opinion.

Having said that, I'd personally like Ricky to fight for Sports Network then we can all watch him on ITV.
Did have a signiture by both parties and a witness too though.
Where is the proof of that, has that been produced?

In this part.

http://www.allegedly.tv/fw4/contract2.pdf

Are some people being biased for Hatton or supporting on purpose because they don't like Warren? What if he ends up messing up his career by keeping it in the family like Naz and Conteh?

Loynesy · Post by **Loynesy** » 17 Sep 2005, 10:28

Max

I am not basing my analysis on any personal likes or dislikes, merely how, as a solicitor I interpret the correspondence.

The Olivieira contract states that the fight is "pursuant to" the previous letter. This wording is key, because the contract itself makes no attempt to make the letter legally binding (if I had drafted it and wanted to be clear the provisions of the letter were biding, I would have said "Pursuant to and accordance with the letter dated [ ], (a copy of which is attached hereto and its terms shall be deemed to be included in this Agreement)."

Therefore, unless the letter was legally binding before the contract (which I doubt and Hatton's team have made it clear they refute), I would say Hatton is free to fight under someone else.

I would not say this interpretation is 100% cast-iron, Warren will argue that if Team Hatton hadn't wanted to be bound by the terms of the letter, there should have been no reference to it in the Oliveria contract but if Hatton was my client, and there was clear evidence in writing (which Hatton's team claim there is) that at no point did Hatton consider himself legally bound by the letter, I'd fancy his chances.

JimStone · Post by **JimStone** » 17 Sep 2005, 11:56

Loynesy wrote:Therefore, unless the letter was legally binding before the contract (which I doubt and Hatton's team have made it clear they refute), I would say Hatton is free to fight under someone else.

That's the point I'm trying to make. If there is no signature from Team Hatton agreeing to what is laid out in that specific letter, how can it be binding? I don't see how Frank can prove that the letter mentioned in the contract has the same content as the one he has provided as evidence.

Hatton could just say: "The letter I got just said that Frank would buy me a pint after the show if I won and I'd buy him one if I lost" or whatever.

Right?

hitman_hatton1 · Post by **hitman_hatton1** » 17 Sep 2005, 13:19

looks like ricky is in the clear then.

if ya wrong loynesy, your sacked.

Phenomenal-Nutrition · Post by **Phenomenal-Nutrition** » 17 Sep 2005, 13:55

hitman_hatton1 wrote:looks like ricky is in the clear then.

if ya wrong loynesy, your sacked.

Yea he'll miss the massive wages were paying him at the moment.

Max Molyneux · Post by **Max Molyneux** » 17 Sep 2005, 17:15

FlawedGenius wrote:
Loynesy wrote:Therefore, unless the letter was legally binding before the contract (which I doubt and Hatton's team have made it clear they refute), I would say Hatton is free to fight under someone else.
That's the point I'm trying to make. If there is no signature from Team Hatton agreeing to what is laid out in that specific letter, how can it be binding? I don't see how Frank can prove that the letter mentioned in the contract has the same content as the one he has provided as evidence.

Hatton could just say: "The letter I got just said that Frank would buy me a pint after the show if I won and I'd buy him one if I lost" or whatever.

Right?

Has Ricky's signiture though on the second half of the contract.

If people know that these letters are proving nothing really then why has he posted it on his site? Is there something he can;t make public maybe?

JimStone · Post by **JimStone** » 17 Sep 2005, 18:48

Max Molyneux wrote:
FlawedGenius wrote:
Loynesy wrote:Therefore, unless the letter was legally binding before the contract (which I doubt and Hatton's team have made it clear they refute), I would say Hatton is free to fight under someone else.
That's the point I'm trying to make. If there is no signature from Team Hatton agreeing to what is laid out in that specific letter, how can it be binding? I don't see how Frank can prove that the letter mentioned in the contract has the same content as the one he has provided as evidence.

Hatton could just say: "The letter I got just said that Frank would buy me a pint after the show if I won and I'd buy him one if I lost" or whatever.

Right?
Has Ricky's signiture though on the second half of the contract.

If people know that these letters are proving nothing really then why has he posted it on his site? Is there something he can;t make public maybe?

I know it does, but it doesn't lay out the content of the letter in that contract. That letter could've said anything - at least that's how I see it.

A cynical - or maybe devious - person might suggest that Frank typed up the letter he has produced on his site last week, and the one he sent in December was nothing like it. I don't see how he can prove otherwise.

As I've said, I actually hope Warren wins and Ricky ends up on ITV, but I just can't see how it's going to happen..

nazfan · Post by **nazfan** » 17 Sep 2005, 20:36

frank is full of shit. the contract was a one fight deal thats all. fornicate what he said in some letter, thats bollocks. the contract refers to the letter but that is some weak shit. some bollocks like 'this contract is in agreement with the letter'. that isnt the same as signing on the dotted line for four fights. frank is pulling a dirty one. cheap tactics. if it was a four fight deal then it should have said so in the contract, not some bollocks sent in the psot. or by email. fornicate allegedly. shame on the pudendum for trying to mess with ourt national heroes. i hate the pig faced motherfucker

Max Molyneux · Post by **Max Molyneux** » 17 Sep 2005, 20:39

FlawedGenius wrote:
Max Molyneux wrote:
FlawedGenius wrote: That's the point I'm trying to make. If there is no signature from Team Hatton agreeing to what is laid out in that specific letter, how can it be binding? I don't see how Frank can prove that the letter mentioned in the contract has the same content as the one he has provided as evidence.

Hatton could just say: "The letter I got just said that Frank would buy me a pint after the show if I won and I'd buy him one if I lost" or whatever.

Right?
Has Ricky's signiture though on the second half of the contract.

If people know that these letters are proving nothing really then why has he posted it on his site? Is there something he can;t make public maybe?
I know it does, but it doesn't lay out the content of the letter in that contract. That letter could've said anything - at least that's how I see it.

A cynical - or maybe devious - person might suggest that Frank typed up the letter he has produced on his site last week, and the one he sent in December was nothing like it. I don't see how he can prove otherwise.

As I've said, I actually hope Warren wins and Ricky ends up on ITV, but I just can't see how it's going to happen..

Probably get more people watching him on ITV than sky and he'll be more of a name. Lewis was ok with PPV because he was a British Heavyweight champion, but Hatton would be a bigger name being on a channel like ITV.

steve richards · Post by **steve richards** » 19 Sep 2005, 06:12

Has Warren shafted hisself by printing the letter openly, will this now get thrown out of court???

hitman_hatton1 · Post by **hitman_hatton1** » 19 Sep 2005, 06:25

so when is all this gonna be resolved.

anyone know the likely timeline in all this.

will they be up in court, next week, next month or next year???

Old bones Ian · Post by **Old bones Ian** » 19 Sep 2005, 06:37

hitman_hatton1 wrote:so when is all this gonna be resolved.

anyone know the likely timeline in all this.

will they be up in court, next week, next month or next year???

I would guess it would be quite soon, its not a criminal prosecution so there shouldn't be a delay. Plus Hatton is supposed to be fighting in November, Mr Warren will no doubt look to put a blocker on that one.

Its a shame its come to this, but i'm wondering who Hatton had in his corner when he was dealing with Mr Warren, I know Rickys dad has been doing alot for him, but how much legal knowledge does he have.

Hatton letters made public read them here.

Hatton letters made public read them here.

fornicate reading it