Unfotunately for WHU this proves nothing at law. The ability to terminate a contract is only defined within the original Private Agreement (between 2 companies, Tevez and WHU it now appears). If that Private Agreement did not expressly allow for any one of those parties to terminate without the consent of the others, then this letter is meaningless. Tevez' refusal to countersign acceptance of the letter is clear proof that at least one other party did not accept the termination, so WHU have got to prove that consent was not needed to end the arrangement. That would be fairly unusual to say the least.
It's also extremely unusual to be able to serve notice on one party and have that be effective on all the others. Normal contracts practice specifies that notice is only effective on a party when served directly to each of those relevant parties. Only telling one person when you need to tell 2 or 3 doesn't work. So if they only physically gave the notice to Tevez, and did so outside of business hours then arguably MSI etc didn't actually receive notice on the date claimed. There's a lot of technicalities here, but this is how things start to unravel when people without legal experience start playing with contracts (and not taking advice - e.g. PL).
If I could go about my daily business as a contracts manager just terminating stuff I don't like or can't be arsed with anymore I'd finish work by 10 am every day and have no worries at all. Of course all exchange or market based economies would have collapsed as well because everyone would be at it, but that's by the by.
