My legal experience is rusty, so forgive me if I'm barking up the wrong tree here, but Adams v Lindsell is primarily about contract dates with relation to the post, isn't it? In that case, both parties had signed the contract in question, but the issue came down to whether the contract was in force from the time the letter was posted or when it was received. Technology has changed somewhat since 1818, nowadays it's quite simple to fax/email a scan of the completed contract as confimation that it's been signed, or to phone (none of which were available in 181icon_cool.gif to confirm that it had been accepted.

Dunlop v Higgins on the other hand deals with the event that the signed contract never arrives through the loss of the post. In this case, again no-one has confirmed that the contract was actually signed by both parties. If it's the signing that's being disputed, as opposed to the sign contract arriving, neither precedent would be relevant.

Aww, turn that frown upside down Mr Rainyface

But if a contract was signed, it had to be submitted within 48 hours. After that, we either wouldn't have been able to submit it, or else we would have faced some sort of penalty. As Orford came up months later (according to Walker's alleged signing date), his availability must be disregarded entirely from the matter.

That's to satisfy the RLF Operating Rules and, I would guess, they'd expect any contract to be signed by both parties. (And as the RFL looked in to the case we can guess that it wasn't)

As to whether a contract had in actual fact been made between the Bulls and Walker (you don't need to have signed something to have made a contract)... that would be up to a court.

it was suggested to me by a fax fan today, that if walker is convinced he had a valid contract with us then that would mean we're due a transfer fee from catalans.