FLM films - My Webpage

2003-08-27 22:55:45-05:00 - Re: charisma's contract - (Julie Carrigon <carrigon@suscom.net>)


<chill@will.com> wrote in message news:3f4d672a.1772979@news.west.earthlink.net... > arn't actors contracted to do x amount of seasons where their bosses > can't just tause them away, unless they are still being paid Alot of contracts have a storyline clause. If the writers claim the storyline requires your absence, they can toss you out. Carrigon -- http://carrigon.proboards15.com ANS-Alpha Nu Sigma--Angel n Spike Sorority Spoilers

2003-08-28 02:20:59+00:00 - charisma's contract - (chill@will.com)


arn't actors contracted to do x amount of seasons where their bosses can't just tause them away, unless they are still being paid

2003-08-28 03:27:27+00:00 - Re: charisma's contract - (PJ Browning <antarian@pacbell.net>)


In article <jeqqkvs7rkk4knqh3e5rjo51nj9mnv2sof@4ax.com>, st <striketoo@hotmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, 28 Aug 2003 02:20:59 GMT, chill@will.com (chill@will.com) > wrote: > > >arn't actors contracted to do x amount of seasons where their bosses > >can't just tause them away, unless they are still being paid > > Maybe her contract was up. Maybe she wanted to renegotiate it and ME > said no. Contracts are complex things. > > If ME had broken her contract, she, her agent and her union would have > sued them into poverty. many contracts have a clause that lets them remove an actor if the person violates behavioral rules (Glenn Quinn) or for storyline reasons (Charisma and Vincent). also, given that the show only had a 4 year contract on its fee, it's possible that the cast was also on a 4 year contract. or that Charisma was on a year by year contract. Or even (in fact very likely) that she had a five year contract when she started Buffy which was converted to Angel and had a two year option attached to it. that would cover 3 years on Buffy and 4 on Angel (a friend of mine did a gig with a similar contract)

2003-08-28 14:43:43+00:00 - Re: charisma's contract - (BTR1701 <BTR1702@austin.rr.com>)


In article <jeqqkvs7rkk4knqh3e5rjo51nj9mnv2sof@4ax.com>, striketoo@hotmail.com wrote: > On Thu, 28 Aug 2003 02:20:59 GMT, chill@will.com (chill@will.com) > wrote: > > >arn't actors contracted to do x amount of seasons where their bosses > >can't just tause them away, unless they are still being paid > > Maybe her contract was up. Maybe she wanted to renegotiate it and ME > said no. Contracts are complex things. > > If ME had broken her contract, she, her agent and her union would have > sued them into poverty. No, they could have only sued them for the value of the contract.

2003-08-31 15:16:32+00:00 - Re: charisma's contract - ("Robert ASF." <ra_forti@alcor.concordia.ca>)


BTR1701 wrote: > striketoo@hotmail.com wrote: snipo >> If ME had broken her contract, she, her agent and her union would have >> sued them into poverty. > > No, they could have only sued them for the value of the contract. Personally, i thought Striketoo was merely speaking hyperbole. However generally speaking if ME had broken her contract and it made her cry they could add on emotional damages, if Me had turned down any work because she thought that she had a contract, she could sue for that and finally, if her prospects for future employment were damaged she could sue for that as well. Those three would at least survive summary dismissal. Being that this is lawsuit happy America she could try to win herself a Stella award, a large payment for very silly reasons named supposedly after the lady who sued McD for having coffee that was too hot. The last point would be that, in fact, she coud sue them for anything, any reason at all. This would be called a frivolous lawsuit but thousands of those are filed yearly. Not to mention that juries can often be swayed to an emotional argument such as the case of a young mother with a new born baby picked on by the big bad Tv producer(s) who cancelled her contracts was being mean to her. A little inference that she is fired because she got pregnant etc and the jury could add on millions of extra damages. Here are some basic links on the subjects discussed, grouped by subject offering some different view points from basic understanding to law journals. A google search for tort returned some 1 700 000 hits. Stella awards http://www.crrange.com/wall44.html http://www.anvari.org/fun/Misc/Stella_Awards.html http://www.ebaumsworld.com/stella.shtml http://www.intaudit.edmonton.ab.ca/files/Just%20for%20Fun/The%20Stella%20Awards.htm http://www.trendmicro.com/vinfo/hoaxes/hoax5.asp?HName=Stella+Awards+Hoax http://www.mtla.net/page.cfm/134/ Tort http://www.law.cornell.edu/topics/torts.html http://www.hg.org/torts.html http://www.atrafoundation.org/tort_facts.html http://www.votenader.com/issues/tort.html Canadian Tort law http://www.duhaime.org/Tort/tort.htm Just Thought I Should Mention It

2003-08-31 20:45:24+00:00 - Re: charisma's contract - (BTR1701 <BTR1702@austin.rr.com>)


In article <slrnbl44af.1vuq.ra_forti@alcor.concordia.ca>, "Robert ASF." <ra_forti@alcor.concordia.ca> wrote: > BTR1701 wrote: > > striketoo@hotmail.com wrote: > > snipo > > >> If ME had broken her contract, she, her agent and her union would have > >> sued them into poverty. > > > > No, they could have only sued them for the value of the contract. > > Personally, i thought Striketoo was merely speaking hyperbole. However > generally speaking if ME had broken her contract and it made her cry they > could add on emotional damages, Not hardly. > if her prospects > for future employment were damaged she could sue for that as well. Only if she could prove it-- which would be virtually impossible to do. Her recent TV movie would be defense enough against that allegation. Unless she ME disfigured her or paralyzed her, merely letting her go from her job on ANGEL in no way prevents her from future employment. In fact, it actually frees her up to go out and look for new work. > Those three would at least survive summary dismissal. Not really. "Making her cry"? Now a television studio has to worry that an actor might cry if they don't get their way? A judge would trash that in a heartbeat. Just because someone's feelings are hurt doesn't give rise to a cause of action. If it did, girls could sue their boyfriends into the poorhouse every time they got dumped. > she could try to win herself a Stella award, a large payment for very silly > reasons named supposedly after the lady who sued McD for having coffee that was > too hot. The last point would be that, in fact, she coud sue them for anything, > any reason at all. This would be called a frivolous lawsuit but thousands of those > are filed yearly. Yeah, and doing so would be the one thing that would virtually ensure she'd have no future employment. Suing over that kind of stuff would burn every bridge she has in Hollywood and no one would touch her after that. > Not to mention that juries can often be swayed to an emotional argument > such as the case of a young mother with a new born baby picked on by the > big ba Tv producer(s) who cancelled her contracts was being mean to her. It would never get to a jury. If there was any danger of that, the defendants (Mutant Enemy) could just choose a bench trial. > A little inference that she is fired because she got pregnant etc > and the jury could add on millions of extra damages. No, they really can't. You've watched far too many bad courtroom movies. Juries can't just add on "millions of extra damages". If they tried, the judge would be required under law to immediately grant defenses motion for a remittitur.

2003-08-31 21:28:30+00:00 - Re: charisma's contract - ("Robert ASF." <ra_forti@alcor.concordia.ca>)


BTR1701 wrote: ><ra_forti@alcor.concordia.ca> wrote: >> BTR1701 wrote: >> > striketoo@hotmail.com wrote: >> >> snipo >> >> >> If ME had broken her contract, she, her agent and her union would have >> >> sued them into poverty. >> > >> > No, they could have only sued them for the value of the contract. >> >> Personally, i thought Striketoo was merely speaking hyperbole. However >> generally speaking if ME had broken her contract and it made her cry they >> could add on emotional damages, > > Not hardly. Sure they could. Heck they could add on that breaking the contract cause Mars to come closer to Earth this week. Doesn't mean they will win, or get passed the first base with their suit, or even prove it. Welcome to the wacky word of tort reform. Lawyer, rather some lawyers, want to reform Tort law so that the really silly stuff is tossed out but they are not making too much head way. >> if her prospects >> for future employment were damaged she could sue for that as well. > > Only if she could prove it Incorrect. You can sue for anything, any cause, any reason. Proof is required for the trial. To launch a suit, all that is needed is a statement of claims submitted to a courthouse and voila officially they are being sued. >-- which would be virtually impossible to do. > Her recent TV movie would be defense enough against that allegation. > Unless she ME disfigured her or paralyzed her, merely letting her go > from her job on ANGEL in no way prevents her from future employment. In > fact, it actually frees her up to go out and look for new work. Ah but those facts are only presented after someone has started the ball rolling with such a suit, and BTW those are matters of fact to be decided and not necessarily grounds for dismissal. >> Those three would at least survive summary dismissal. > > Not really. "Making her cry"? Now a television studio has to worry that > an actor might cry if they don't get their way? Why not? Read the product warning labels on most products, they include some very stupid warnings. Why? Because some idiot sued and won on that very point. > A judge would trash that in a heartbeat. Aint up on the silliness of tort law are you? Oh and a judge might not toos the suit out. Some of the judges out there are as wacky as the suits filed. > Just because someone's feelings are hurt doesn't give rise to a cause of > action. If it did, girls could sue their boyfriends into the poorhouse > every time they got dumped. Ahem, if the boyfriend has a lot of money and the girlfriend is a gold digger then they do indeed lauch such suits. Because of the cost of such a suit is high, it only occurs to the rich and famous. >> she could try to win herself a Stella award, a large payment for very silly >> reasons named supposedly after the lady who sued McD for having coffee that was >> too hot. The last point would be that, in fact, she coud sue them for anything, >> any reason at all. This would be called a frivolous lawsuit but thousands of those >> are filed yearly. > > Yeah, and doing so would be the one thing that would virtually ensure > she'd have no future employment. Perhaps but that is an issue outside of discussion. > Suing over that kind of stuff would burn every bridge she has in > Hollywood and no one would touch her after that. Probably. >> Not to mention that juries can often be swayed to an emotional argument >> such as the case of a young mother with a new born baby picked on by the >> big ba Tv producer(s) who cancelled her contracts was being mean to her. > > It would never get to a jury. If there was any danger of that, the > defendants (Mutant Enemy) could just choose a bench trial. I do not know California law well enough, Do they have bench trials or are they all jury trials in civil court? In Quebec, we only have bench trials hence, someone could sue for 1000$, prove they were hurt 1000$ and in quebec have the judge agree and still not award any money... Quebec judges never award money in suits and if they do it is always a conservative amount. >> A little inference that she is fired because she got pregnant etc >> and the jury could add on millions of extra damages. > > No, they really can't. You've watched far too many bad courtroom movies. No, i have read too many real and unreal stella award winners... > Juries can't just add on "millions of extra damages". If they tried, > the judge would be required under law to immediately grant defenses > motion for a remittitur. "Not withstanding the jury verdict..." Gotta love punitive damages. The jury, depending on state and instructions can often exceed the amounts of punitive damages asked for by the plantive hence why there is such a thing as the "Stella awards". Just Thought I Should Mention It

2003-08-31 22:42:57+00:00 - Re: charisma's contract - (PJ Browning <antarian@pacbell.net>)


In article <slrnbl4q3t.4blt.ra_forti@alcor.concordia.ca>, Robert ASF. <ra_forti@alcor.concordia.ca> wrote: > BTR1701 wrote: > > > > Yeah, and doing so would be the one thing that would virtually ensure > > she'd have no future employment. > > Perhaps but that is an issue outside of discussion. > > > Suing over that kind of stuff would burn every bridge she has in > > Hollywood and no one would touch her after that. > > Probably. not probably. it would. Hollywood is nothing if not petty and possessing a long memory. And if you were dumb enough to get on the record by doing something as wacked as filing for breach of contract because you were dropped from a show due to story reasons, then you would never work again. Now if you were dropped because you refused to prance around topless and show the world your tits, then you might be able to weasel a sexual harassment claim out of it. or if Joss had called Charisma into the office and said that she was fired because they refused to have a pregnant woman on the show (violates CA labor law unless they can prove that there is absolutely no way she can do her job while she's pregs). But just to file a claim that you were unjustly fired because you didn't like the direction the story was going since it took your character out. that will cost you a lot, your career being the first.

2003-09-01 06:02:28+00:00 - Re: charisma's contract - ("Robert ASF." <ra_forti@alcor.concordia.ca>)


PJ Browning wrote: ><ra_forti@alcor.concordia.ca> wrote: >> BTR1701 wrote: snipo >> > Suing over that kind of stuff would burn every bridge she has in >> > Hollywood and no one would touch her after that. >> >> Probably. > > not probably. > > it would. > > Hollywood is nothing if not petty and possessing a long memory. snipo Since this is an improbable futuristic event i defer to your certainty on the matter. Just Thought I Should Mention It

2003-09-01 15:43:39+00:00 - Re: charisma's contract - (BTR1701 <BTR1702@austin.rr.com>)


In article <slrnbl4q3t.4blt.ra_forti@alcor.concordia.ca>, "Robert ASF." <ra_forti@alcor.concordia.ca> wrote: > BTR1701 wrote: > ><ra_forti@alcor.concordia.ca> wrote: > >> BTR1701 wrote: > >> > striketoo@hotmail.com wrote: > >> > >> snipo > >> > >> >> If ME had broken her contract, she, her agent and her union would > >> >> have sued them into poverty. > >> > > >> > No, they could have only sued them for the value of the contract. > >> > >> Personally, i thought Striketoo was merely speaking hyperbole. > >> However generally speaking if ME had broken her contract and it made her cry > >> they could add on emotional damages, > > > > Not hardly. > > Sure they could. Heck they could add on that breaking the contract cause > Mars to come closer to Earth this week. No, they really can't. Where di you learn contract law? One party can't unilaterally add terms to a contract. Basic law school 101. > Doesn't mean they will win, or > get passed the first base with their suit, or even prove it. Welcome to the wacky > word of tort reform. This isn't a tort law issue. It's a contract law issue. > Lawyer, rather some lawyers, want to reform Tort law so that > the really silly stuff is tossed out but they are not making too much head > way. That's true and might be relevant if Carpenter's contract somehow fell under the realm of tort law. > >> if her prospects > >> for future employment were damaged she could sue for that as well. > > > > Only if she could prove it > > Incorrect. You can sue for anything, any cause, any reason. No, not really. You have to have a colorable cause of action recognized by the judge or he won't even authorize service of process on the defendants. > >-- which would be virtually impossible to do. > > Her recent TV movie would be defense enough against that allegation. > > Unless she ME disfigured her or paralyzed her, merely letting her go > > from her job on ANGEL in no way prevents her from future employment. In > > fact, it actually frees her up to go out and look for new work. > > Ah but those facts are only presented after someone has started the ball > rolling with such a suit, and BTW those are matters of fact to be decided > and not necessarily grounds for dismissal. The fact that virtually none of the things you've listed are colorable causes of action under the law is grounds for dismissal. "Your honor, my client cried, for goodness sake!" "So?" > >> Those three would at least survive summary dismissal. > > > > Not really. "Making her cry"? Now a television studio has to worry that > > an actor might cry if they don't get their way? > > Why not? Read the product warning labels on most products, they include > some very stupid warnings Because the tort involving emotional trauma is an intentional tort. Merely having your feelings hurt doesn't qualify. > > A judge would trash that in a heartbeat. > > Aint up on the silliness of tort law are you? You don't seem to be up on the *basics* of tort law. > > Just because someone's feelings are hurt doesn't give rise to a cause > > of action. If it did, girls could sue their boyfriends into the poorhouse > > every time they got dumped. > > Ahem, if the boyfriend has a lot of money and the girlfriend is a gold > digger then they do indeed lauch such suits. Cite please. > >> she could try to win herself a Stella award, a large payment for very > >> silly reasons named supposedly after the lady who sued McD for having coffee > >> that was too hot. The last point would be that, in fact, she coud sue them for > >> anything, any reason at all. This would be called a frivolous lawsuit but > >> thousands of those are filed yearly. > > > > Yeah, and doing so would be the one thing that would virtually ensure > > she'd have no future employment. > > Perhaps but that is an issue outside of discussion. Not really. You were saying above that she could sue for loss of employment opportunity. It's very relvant to the discussion since the suit itself would be the single most important factor in her loss of employment opportunity. > >> Not to mention that juries can often be swayed to an emotional > >> argument such as the case of a young mother with a new born baby picked on by > >> the big ba Tv producer(s) who cancelled her contracts was being mean to > >> her. > > > > It would never get to a jury. If there was any danger of that, the > > defendants (Mutant Enemy) could just choose a bench trial. > > I do not know California law well enough, Do they have bench trials or > are they all jury trials in civil court? Yes, they have bench trials. > >> A little inference that she is fired because she got pregnant etc > >> and the jury could add on millions of extra damages. > > > > No, they really can't. You've watched far too many bad courtroom > > movies. > > No, i have read too many real and unreal stella award winners... > > > Juries can't just add on "millions of extra damages". If they tried, > > the judge would be required under law to immediately grant defenses > > motion for a remittitur. > > "Not withstanding the jury verdict..." No, that's a judgment not withstanding the verdict. Different thing.

2003-09-01 21:39:34+00:00 - Re: charisma's contract - ("Robert ASF." <ra_forti@alcor.concordia.ca>)


In article <BTR1702-82212B.10421001092003@news-server.austin.rr.com>, BTR1701 wrote: snipo >> Sure they could. Heck they could add on that breaking the contract cause >> Mars to come closer to Earth this week. > > No, they really can't. Sure they can, thats half the fun with torts! A guy filed suit against, get this list: The US government, CIA, FBI, Canadian Government, CSIS and i personally just love this one, Ann Murry the singer... Why Ann Murry? who knows why. His claim was that he was an alien and these groups/people were preventing him from going home to whatever planet he was from... :-) Serious lawsuit and real. Hence why tort reform is always argued for. His judge tossed the case, not for being silly, but because in his statement of claims he stated he was an alien and as such not a citizen and thus had no legal standing before the court to bring suit. LOL! > Where di you learn contract law? :-) > One party can't > unilaterally add terms to a contract. They can add on to their lawsuit that the breaking of a contract caused Mars to move closer to the Earth. While that would be extremely hard to swallow as a forseeable consequence of cancelling their contract, they can still add it in... > Basic law school 101. True cannot add to the contract but you can claim almost anything as forseeable from the break of the contract. >> Doesn't mean they will win, or >> get passed the first base with their suit, or even prove it. Welcome to the wacky >> word of tort reform. > > This isn't a tort law issue. It's a contract law issue. Spliting hairs are we? >> Lawyer, rather some lawyers, want to reform Tort law so that >> the really silly stuff is tossed out but they are not making too much head >> way. > > That's true and might be relevant if Carpenter's contract somehow fell > under the realm of tort law. When we reached into the wacky zone we left contract law and went into tort law. >> >> if her prospects >> >> for future employment were damaged she could sue for that as well. >> > >> > Only if she could prove it >> >> Incorrect. You can sue for anything, any cause, any reason. > > No, not really. You have to have a colorable cause of action recognized > by the judge or he won't even authorize service of process on the > defendants. Theoretically, i agree that a judge may toss it at that point. However, take a look at any of the wacky court cases and you will see that the bar is set rather low. >> >-- which would be virtually impossible to do. >> > Her recent TV movie would be defense enough against that allegation. >> > Unless she ME disfigured her or paralyzed her, merely letting her go >> > from her job on ANGEL in no way prevents her from future employment. In >> > fact, it actually frees her up to go out and look for new work. >> >> Ah but those facts are only presented after someone has started the ball >> rolling with such a suit, and BTW those are matters of fact to be decided >> and not necessarily grounds for dismissal. > > The fact that virtually none of the things you've listed are colorable > causes of action under the law is grounds for dismissal. > > "Your honor, my client cried, for goodness sake!" > > "So?" Or a serious lawyer could argue that she suffered serious emotional damage, including depression as indicated by her crying constantly. Somehow i think my way would make it past dismissal. snipo >> Why not? Read the product warning labels on most products, they include >> some very stupid warnings > > Because the tort involving emotional trauma is an intentional tort. > Merely having your feelings hurt doesn't qualify. :-) You say potato, i say patato... :-0 Evidence of emotional trauma... why crying would be the first indication... >> > A judge would trash that in a heartbeat. >> >> Aint up on the silliness of tort law are you? > > You don't seem to be up on the *basics* of tort law. Got the basics and the silliness is the fun part. >> > Just because someone's feelings are hurt doesn't give rise to a cause >> > of action. If it did, girls could sue their boyfriends into the poorhouse >> > every time they got dumped. >> >> Ahem, if the boyfriend has a lot of money and the girlfriend is a gold >> digger then they do indeed lauch such suits. > > Cite please. http://www.cfli.com/palimony.html http://www.fspclaw.com/pal.htm Bored now. Do your own search for palimony suits. snipo >> > Yeah, and doing so would be the one thing that would virtually ensure >> > she'd have no future employment. >> >> Perhaps but that is an issue outside of discussion. > > Not really. You were saying above that she could sue for loss of > employment opportunity. It's very relvant to the discussion since the > suit itself would be the single most important factor in her loss of > employment opportunity. Let see if i get the reasoning here: She gets fired She sues, which is a perfectly legal thing to do She cannot get further employment because of the suit The defense raises this as a defense to mitigate their damages? LOL! snipo >> > Juries can't just add on "millions of extra damages". If they tried, >> > the judge would be required under law to immediately grant defenses >> > motion for a remittitur. >> >> "Not withstanding the jury verdict..." > > No, that's a judgment not withstanding the verdict. Different thing. http://www.hartley.com/remitur.htm LOL! "Remittitur is a process by which jurisdiction is transferred back from the appellate court to the trial court. Remittitur divests the appellate court of the jurisdiction after it has resolved the appeal, and permits full jurisdiction over the judgment to be returned to the trial court. If the judgment has been affirmed, there is little more for the lower court to do. If the judgment has been modified or reversed, or the cause "remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion," the trial court will have to take certain steps ordered by the appellate court. Obviously it cannot do so if the jurisdiction remains in the court of appeal." Just Thought I Should Mention It

2003-09-02 00:17:06+00:00 - Re: charisma's contract - (BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>)


In article <slrnbl7f4m.7n5g.ra_forti@alcor.concordia.ca>, "Robert ASF." <ra_forti@alcor.concordia.ca> wrote: > In article <BTR1702-82212B.10421001092003@news-server.austin.rr.com>, > BTR1701 wrote: > > snipo > > >> Sure they could. Heck they could add on that breaking the contract > >> cause Mars to come closer to Earth this week. > > > > No, they really can't. > > Sure they can, thats half the fun with torts! At what point did you come under the delusion that trying to add a term or clause to a contract had anything whatsoever to do with tort law? > > A guy filed suit against, get this list: The US government, CIA, FBI, > Canadian Government, CSIS and i personally just love this one, Ann Murry > the singer... Why Ann Murry? who knows why. His claim was that he was an > alien and these groups/people were preventing him from going home to whatever > planet he was from... :-) Serious lawsuit and real. Hence why tort reform is always > argued for. The issue with Carpenter is a contract law case. Not tort law. > > One party can't > > unilaterally add terms to a contract. > > They can add on to their lawsuit that the breaking of a contract caused > Mars to move closer to the Earth. What the hell are you talking about? > > Basic law school 101. > > True cannot add to the contract but you can claim almost anything as > forseeable from the break of the contract. You're not making any sense. > >> Doesn't mean they will win, or > >> get passed the first base with their suit, or even prove it. Welcome > >> to the wacky > >> word of tort reform. > > > > This isn't a tort law issue. It's a contract law issue. > > Spliting hairs are we? Yeah, right. Why not call it a constitutional law issue while you're at it? > >> Lawyer, rather some lawyers, want to reform Tort law so that > >> the really silly stuff is tossed out but they are not making too much > >> head way. > > > > That's true and might be relevant if Carpenter's contract somehow fell > > under the realm of tort law. > > When we reached into the wacky zone we left contract law and went into > tort law. No, only you did. The "me" part of "we" is still firmly grounded in reality and actual law. > >> >-- which would be virtually impossible to do. > >> > Her recent TV movie would be defense enough against that allegation. > >> > Unless she ME disfigured her or paralyzed her, merely letting her go > >> > from her job on ANGEL in no way prevents her from future employment. > >> > In fact, it actually frees her up to go out and look for new work. > >> > >> Ah but those facts are only presented after someone has started the > >> ball > >> rolling with such a suit, and BTW those are matters of fact to be > >> decided > >> and not necessarily grounds for dismissal. > > > > The fact that virtually none of the things you've listed are colorable > > causes of action under the law is grounds for dismissal. > > > > "Your honor, my client cried, for goodness sake!" > > > > "So?" > > Or a serious lawyer could argue that she suffered serious emotional > damage, including depression as indicated by her crying constantly. It doesn't matter if she suffered serious emotional damage. The tort relevant to emotional distress requires intent. > Somehow i think my way would make it past dismissal. You can think whatever you like but reality tells a different story. > >> Why not? Read the product warning labels on most products, they > >> include some very stupid warnings > > > > Because the tort involving emotional trauma is an intentional tort. > > Merely having your feelings hurt doesn't qualify. > > :-) You say potato, i say patato... :-0 And my way of saying actually has the law behidn it. > > Evidence of emotional trauma... why crying would be the first > indication... I never said anything about evidence. I believe I mentioned that it was an intentional tort and that merely having one's feelings hurt doesn't qualify. > >> > Just because someone's feelings are hurt doesn't give rise to a > >> > cause of action. If it did, girls could sue their boyfriends into the > >> > poorhouse every time they got dumped. > >> > >> Ahem, if the boyfriend has a lot of money and the girlfriend is a > >> gold digger then they do indeed lauch such suits. > > > > Cite please. > > http://www.cfli.com/palimony.html > http://www.fspclaw.com/pal.htm Okay, you've cited two links dealing with palimony which has nothing to do with civil suits involving intentional infliction of emotional distress when a guy breaks up with a girl and she cries over it. Please provide cite requested, not a cite to something completely irrelevant to the issue. > >> > Yeah, and doing so would be the one thing that would virtually > >> > ensure she'd have no future employment. > >> > >> Perhaps but that is an issue outside of discussion. > > > > Not really. You were saying above that she could sue for loss of > > employment opportunity. It's very relvant to the discussion since the > > suit itself would be the single most important factor in her loss of > > employment opportunity. > > Let see if i get the reasoning here: > > She gets fired > She sues, which is a perfectly legal thing to do > She cannot get further employment because of the suit > The defense raises this as a defense to mitigate their damages? No, the chronology would more accurately be: (1) She gets fired. (2) She sues. (3)The judge reviews the terms of her employment contract and assesses her the value of the remainder of her contract, if any. (4) The judge reads through her claim of damages alleging loss of the ability to obtain future employment. (5) The judge looks up and sees a perfectly healthy and vibrant young woman standing behind the plaintiff's table and laughs his ass off as he grants the defense's motion for summary judgment on that claim. > LOL! Indeed. > >> > Juries can't just add on "millions of extra damages". If they > >> > tried, the judge would be required under law to immediately grant defenses > >> > motion for a remittitur. > >> > >> "Not withstanding the jury verdict..." > > > > No, that's a judgment not withstanding the verdict. Different thing. > > http://www.hartley.com/remitur.htm > > LOL! > > "Remittitur is a process by which jurisdiction is transferred back from > the appellate court to the trial court. Remittitur divests the appellate > court of the jurisdiction after it has resolved the appeal, and permits full > jurisdiction over the judgment to be returned to the trial court. If the judgment has > been affirmed, there is little more for the lower court to do. If the judgment > has been modified or reversed, or the cause "remanded for further proceedings > consistent with the opinion," the trial court will have to take certain > steps ordered by the appellate court. Obviously it cannot do so if the > jurisdiction remains in the court of appeal." Not sure what you're laughing about. That pretty much affirms what I just said.

2003-09-02 09:13:42+10:00 - Re: charisma's contract - (Kas <tasha.yar@optushome.com.au>)


"st" <striketoo@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:jeqqkvs7rkk4knqh3e5rjo51nj9mnv2sof@4ax.com... > On Thu, 28 Aug 2003 02:20:59 GMT, chill@will.com (chill@will.com) > wrote: > > >arn't actors contracted to do x amount of seasons where their bosses > >can't just tause them away, unless they are still being paid > > Maybe her contract was up. Maybe she wanted to renegotiate it and ME > said no. Contracts are complex things. > > If ME had broken her contract, she, her agent and her union would have > sued them into poverty. > > The only thing that seems clear is that Charisma didn't get what she > 'wanted'. ME had no obligation to keep renewing her contract and > certainly not on her terms. > > st > > -- > Defender of the Power That Was > Apostle of the Peace > Disciple of the Holy Jasmine > We loved her first, last and always, and await her glorious return. Some contracts have clauses in them which state if the actor becomes pregnant the contract is no longer void as well incase there comes a time when one does fall pregnant and there is no way to write it in to the story arc or cover it up.. I've even heard of contracts when it comes to TV shows where becoming preg would have been a breach of the contract on the side of the actor (where the contract basically says you may not have kids untill the show is done).... So if this being the case and they go to all the trouble of writting her pregnancy into the show to keep her in the show and then she turns around and asks for maternaty leave or something, yah they could null the contract then as well if that contract states that pregnancy isn't part of the deal..