Tort law.
I didn't realise this was such a difficult concept, but seeing as there are three intelligent posters (you, @r-u-s-x and @90291Spur ) all missing the point, I'll assume I'm failing to explain properly (something quite common for me) and step through from the start.
Firstly though, please ignore contract law, employment law, Bosman, etc. This is tort law, entirely separate and almost always judged on merits once a few hurdles are passed (meaning it's worth doing, or usually enough to force the other party to change their actions).
So, the initial hurdles we have to show are (1)that Son owes us a duty of care, (2)that he took or omitted actions and (3)that those (in)actions have harmed us. Once you're past those hurdles, a judge will decide (4)if it is fair, just and reasonable to impose liability.
(1) Is simple. Son is an employee, and as such owes us a duty of care. There are caveats imposed on the claimant here, so that employees are able to go about their day to day duties without fear of getting sued for every mistake. If the actions are within the usual course of their employment then negligence is required to get past this hurdle, and only then, IIRC, in cases such as physical harm. This isn't in the scope of his normal duties, this is something else entirely.
This one is pretty simple - there's a duty of care.
(2) is reasonably clear and can be made clearer by the club officially asking Son to postpone or skip his service. It's obvious that there's an action (setting a date to start the service) or an ommision (failing to take simple steps to avoid service).
(3) is the easiest to show of the lot. Son has a market value that is reasonably easy to measure. We would need to show that without his actions (or ommisions) that loss wouldn't occur. As I stated earlier, the vast majority of footballers at his stage of career do not run out their contracts - especially not from 3 years out. Our inability to sell him is a clear economic loss and his action/inaction has both contributed to the loss and been outside the scope of his employment.
(4) is the only point where the case is uncertain. That would depend entirely on the judge and how the cases were presented. That's of less importance though because in almost every case, if the first three hurdles are passed, the two sides end up settling out of court. I've never been involved in that part of the process, so I can't speculate on how it would go. The very worst case is that we would end up recouping some of the money we're losing on Son.
This is all in the opinion of a layman, but this is how the law has been explained to me by someone who very much isn't. The people I hire to do this kind of work do this all the time and are always successful for us.
Last edited:
