Quote: Liane "Bulls had to settle after the judge ruled the contract was not a restraint of trade as the Bulls would be liable to some extent surely? Maybe not to the extent they induced him as Leeds said but we were not cash rich to take the risk of a heavier settlement on less favourable terms?'"
Not at all. That was only a preliminary point. One which the Bulls were foolish to take IMO but not one that really affected the Leeds claims of inducment against the Bulls. The settlement came some time after the preliminary issue and the Bulls fought for a while. The case was put on hold whilst the Mainstream case went to the House of Lords and some observers thought that decision strengthened the Bulls position
FWIW, as an interested observer who does some work in this field my view was that Leeds would easily succeed in proving breach of contract by Harris but proving inducment by the Bulls would be a different matter, though I think Leeds would have succeeded.
Even if Leeds did prove breach and inducement IMO damages would have been limited given that when those events occured Leeds surged to the title and posted record crowds. I know there might have bene an argument about lost sponsorship opportunities but then any damages would have been reduced by the wages Leeds hadn't had to pay Harris.
Given the Bulls regime change there appeared little appetite for carrying on the fight. Whether the consequences of losing that fight would have been as disatrous and in the figures reported is debatable but I have doubts they would.
