[BBfan6418]

Originally Posted by joeysteele

I have duly answered and addressed this on another thread, again on here I retract the fact I misread an article as to Jay's Mothers' wordings, I fully accept I read it wrong and have said so on another thread, I do the same here again.


At least now I am corrected as to the fact that she herself didn't say it but the papaer she gave her comments to did however she didn't correct it in the article either herself. however I admit I was wrong to not read the article in full and with my usual care and due attention to detail so was wrong to say Jay's Mother said the words rather than the paper.

The one fact clearly remains that Jay appears to have 15k and 5k of that is not his in that agreement. No one seems to be questioning him or anyone else to that matter though.

Seeing how Lou and Jay are a couple their would be no need to question it. Alex still owes them 1K.

[Jezzy]

The real legal question, according to case law is whether or not the people party to the "contract" acted in such a way as to validate that "contract" after the utterance. This would be "understood performance" and would be granted a hearing.

I'm not aware of any conditions that could be performed in the enactment of the "contract" therefore legally I would have to say there is nothing binding either/any of them. The fact that it had been discussed on camera may be taken into account as persuasive evidence, but could also equally be taken as emotive chat, especially considering there were no conditions to perform within either housemate's remit.

I do have a law degree - if all or any of them wish to walk away from the subjunctive chat (if....) I would be happy to represent them. For a price.