Gareth Cliff beats M-Net

DJ... said:
By calling him poison (and the rest of their nonsense they spewed about him) they've broken down the trust between them, by their own doing, and they've opened themselves up to paying a rather large civil suit here.

They really did cock this one up big time. Their petty and knee-jerk reaction to a valid statement was poisonous to them more than anyone else, and they deserve the repercussions...
Click to expand...

Laat dit vir hulle 'n les wees.

Then again, with the premiums they charge, any amount they'd have to pay will be small fry.
 
The bosses at MWeb should just cut their losses.

Have a private meeting with GC, agree to a settle in which they apologise and he gets a nice sum of cash.

Because they will only lose worse and worse if they take this further.

And the person who does actually deserve to get fired is the hothead who fired GC without consulting HR or legal. That was pretty stupid and its going to cost the company millions.
 
Ancalagon said:
The bosses at MWeb should just cut their losses.

Have a private meeting with GC, agree to a settle in which they apologise and he gets a nice sum of cash.

Because they will only lose worse and worse if they take this further.

And the person who does actually deserve to get fired is the hothead who fired GC without consulting HR or legal. That was pretty stupid and its going to cost the company millions.
Click to expand...

This'll be the first they hear of this...
 
konfab said:
:D

To be fair though, the arguments MNet made were very weak. Cliff could have used Google as his attorney and still won.
Click to expand...

They weren't weak... the stuff MNet did was poison to their own case.
 
Leftfoot said:
Does he get his R25mil?
Click to expand...

No
The judge didn't rule on the rights and wrongs of Cliff's speech

MNET argued there was No Contract
Cliff said there was
The Judge agreed with Cliff

So if MNET want to take it further they have to try and do it ito the contract
 
ToxicBunny said:
They weren't weak... the stuff MNet did was poison to their own case.
Click to expand...

Mnet's argument was terrible! And this coming from a well respected jurist like Trengrove. They argued that because the offer was sent by email and accepted by Cliff via email, it is not an oral agreement because it was not spoken language! This is just laughable. Like Dali Mphofu said, Mnet's case might as well have been unopposed because their argument is so weak. Mnet now has to pay the cost of 2 senior counsels and end up with eggs on their faces. Well done on Garreth for fighting the injustice of Mnet.
 
cozinsky said:
They argued that because the offer was sent by email and accepted by Cliff via email, it is not an oral agreement because it was not spoken language!
Click to expand...
... cough, cough .. EC ... cough, cough, cough, cough ... ECT ... ... cough, cough ACT!

Pretty surprising such a defense coming from a party in the industry they're in.

  • So they do not understand contract law.
  • They do not understand the ECT Act
  • They do not understand free speech
  • They do not understand who their subscribers are


What do they understand?
 
Last edited:
Sollie said:
... cough, cough .. EC ... cough, cough, cough, cough ... ECT ... ... cough, cough ACT!

Pretty surprising such a defense coming from a party in the industry they're in.

  • So they do not understand contract law.
  • They do not understand the ACT Act
  • They do not understand free speech
  • They do not understand who their subscribers are


What do they understand?
Click to expand...
The ACT act?
Assume you meant ECT act that you referred to in the beginning.
 
Electron1 said:
The ACT act?
Assume you meant ECT act that you referred to in the beginning.
Click to expand...

Was a test. See even we understand it better than Mnet ... (polishes halo, hides made in China sticker)

Thanks, fixed typo ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X