ContractsProf Blog

Marcus Jordan: A Pair of Shoes, Family Ties and a University's Exclusive Contract

The Orlando Sentinel reports this interesting contracts story, involving Michael Jordan's son:

A pair of shoes could end up costing the University of Central Florida nearly $3 million.

UCF promised Marcus Jordan, son of NBA legend Michael Jordan, that he could wear his father's Nike Air Jordan brand for the Knights' basketball team this season.

The problem? UCF has an exclusive $3 million, six-year contract with adidas that requires all coaches and athletes to use the company's shoes, apparel and game equipment.

And now UCF and adidas are at an impasse, leaving an 18-year-old freshman with a famous father caught in the middle.

"When I was being recruited, we talked about it," Marcus Jordan said. "They said they had talked to the adidas people, and it wasn't going to be a problem. I think everybody understands how big of a deal it is for my family."

The deal has strained the relationship between UCF and one of its most important business partners, complicating current contract-renewal negotiations. The university's agreement with the company expires in 2010.

Contrary to a report last week by AOL Fanhouse, adidas officials told the Orlando Sentinel they have not reached an agreement with UCF yet about Jordan's shoes.

"There is no compromise, and the contract is currently under review," adidas spokeswoman Andrea Corso said. "We are in negotiations for a future relationship regarding the broader UCF athletic program. What I can say is that these relationships are based upon agreed deliverables for both parties."

UCF Athletics Association released a statement indicating it hopes to extend its 5-year-old relationship with adidas.

"At this time, we are working with adidas in determining how this unique set of circumstances will work for both parties," the statement said. "We made adidas aware of this unique situation during contract-renewal discussions. There is a great deal of respect for the adidas brand and the partnership."

UCF's contract with adidas represents about 1.4 percent of the UCF Athletics Association's projected income this year.

UCF is negotiating a new deal with adidas that is tentatively expected to be worth $3million and last up to six years. UCF would receive all its merchandise from adidas free under the new proposed contract, a change from the current deal that calls for UCF to buy some items from adidas at wholesale prices.

Nike has not expressed interest in taking over the UCF shoe contract, with the company well-represented in the Florida market thanks to agreements with the University of Florida, Florida State and Miami.

In the worst-possible scenario, UCF risks losing its current adidas contract's worth and being forced to buy its own clothing, shoes and equipment at full price for all 15 of its sports.

Marcus Jordan, the young man in the middle of this controversy, said he never meant to offend anyone.

"It's a level of importance with the Jordan brand and my family," he said. "It's no disrespect to adidas. I have a high level of respect for adidas, but I'm going to be wearing Jordan shoes. I'm wearing the adidas uniform, and all my other UCF gear is adidas, but the shoes are going to be Jordan brand."

Dan Drane, an assistant professor of sports management at the University of Southern Mississippi, said it's hard to imagine Marcus Jordan would be able to wear anything besides Nikes.

"Whether it's right or wrong, Michael Jordan's sons will always be compared to and associated with him," Drane said. "It would be very difficult for them to be associated with a company other than the one that was so supportive of their father's career."

Drane said the shoe controversy goes beyond adidas simply wanting UCF to honor its contract.

"It's a pretty deep issue that touches on a student's legal right to wear whatever they feel is best for them," Drane said. "In the end, this might end up being bigger than just a battle between adidas and Nike."

[Meredith R. Miller]

Jon & Kate Plus Attorneys

Many regular readers have written to complain about the blog's non-existent coverage of the greatest drama of the 21st century thus far, the War of the Gosselins.  The truth is, we were barred from writing about "other reality television programs" under the terms of various letters of intent that we had entered into with reality television production companies interested in pitching shows that centered on our blog and our rivalries with other law blogs.  Sadly enough, television viewers will now never see that drama.  

We were able to overcome the initial obstacle that the camera crews kept on falling asleep while filming the "action shots," which consisted of us eating ding dongs, sipping coffee and Mountain Dew while composing blog posts and chortling as we flamed our various nemeses.  But when the focus groups that viewed the pilot for our show also fell asleep, each production company in turn told us "we should do lunch some time."  Whatever that means.  

So, to get you up to speed.  CNN.com reports the following: Jon and Kate are separated.  TLC, the channel that brought us "Jon & Kate Plus 8," decided to continue with a show that focused on Kate's "journey as a single mother."  Jon pulled the plug on that by denying TLC access to his home, expressing concern [get this!] for his children.  You can watch Jon and his central-casting-provided attorney on Larry King Live here.  It will really be a shame if "Kate Plus 8" never appears.  As the advance publicity shot provided here indicates, Kate will inspire other mothers of multiples with her tips on keeping in shape while pregnant through hoola hoop exercises and rhythmic gymnastics.

TLC is fighting back, alleging that Jon has violated his contract with the network by giving unauthorized television interviews.  TLC alleges damages of $30,000, but Jon, through his attorney, challenges the enforceability of the contract and also argues that the contract was terminated when TLC decided to replace "Jon & Kate Plus 8" with "Kate Plus 8."  

Both Jon and Kate intend to continue their television careers, and I think the title of this post provides a name for their next reality television series.

[Jeremy Telman]

Twelve Year Old Girl Bests Phillies' Slugger

In order to try to pump some energy into their dull sport, baseball announcers are constantly reminding their viewers that they are witnessing history: 

"You saw it here first, folks! That is the first time a third baseman has thrown two balls into the stands in the same inning!  Wow, some lucky fan has a valuable souvenir. . . . Wait a minute, folks.  Our statistician is telling me that this is not the first time that has happened. . . .  Has it ever happened in this ball park?  Oh.  In the third inning? . . .  Un-huh, but was it a day game?. . .  So there you have it folks, we have confirmed that this is the first time in baseball history that a National League third baseman has thrown two balls into the stands in the same inning during an inter-league day game played in an American League park in the year that he is due to become a free agent!  Wow!  Imagine that!"

And so, according to this view of history, Phillies' Slugger Ryan Howard (pictured) made history, as reported on CNN.com, when he hit his 200^th home run in his 658^th major league game, making him the fastest player to reach the milestone, besting the previous record by 48 games.  It is a great achievement, but I’m not sure if it is really one for the history books, even if CNN says it is.  The lucky fan to retrieve the ball was 12-year-old Jennifer Valdivia, who apparently bested her 17-year-old brother in the treasure hunt. 

An official from the home team, the Florida Marlins, then reportedly escorted Jennifer and her brother to the Phillies’ dugout.  There, CNN reports that the following transaction occurred:

A Phillies employee, Jennifer says, told her if she handed over the ball, she could come back after the game, meet the slugger and get him to autograph it. She gave the ball up. In exchange, she got cotton candy and a soda.

Alas, after the game, she and her family went to the Philllies’ clubhouse as directed, but Ryan Howard never showed up.  A security guard gave her a signed ball, but it wasn’t the ball.  Jennifer testified that she was, “like, really sad.”  Jennifer’s mother was more than sad, she was “steamed.”  Eventually, she was also represented by an attorney who, through the alchemical processes in which attorneys specialize, metamorphosed anger and disappointment into a legal claim for $15,000.  The Phillies’ and Howard’s resistance were thereby overcome.  They returned the home run ball to Jennifer and also paid her attorney's fees. 

Jennifer says that she intends to keep the ball and to show it to her kids.  I hope she does, rather than selling it.  As CNN notes, letting fans keep balls is a way of letting them connect with their baseball heroes.  We ought not to put a price tag on being a part of history.

[Jeremy Telman]

Alan White on Drafting Exercises

The Third in a Series of Posts by:

Guest Blogger, Alan White 

Thanks to Professor Miller’s post on this blog, I became aware of the Goldberg v. (Paris) Hilton case, which fit nicely into this week’s discussions of uncertain expectation damages, reliance and restitution.  In addition to discussing the case, I decided to use it as the basis for my first drafting exercise.  Last year I asked students to draft a liquidated damage clause based on the Lake River v. Carborundum case from the casebook, in which Judge Posner invalidates a contractual remedy as a penalty.  Because Judge Posner’s opinion steps through the math to show why the contractual remedy resulted in a windfall, the exercise did not allow for a great variety of solutions.  The Hilton case was a considerable improvement in giving free reign to students’ creativity, while still inviting the predictable errors.  The liquidated damages exercise requires not only an understanding of when such clauses are deemed unenforceable penalties, but also a grasp of the expectation, reliance or restitution damages of which the clause is supposed to be a reasonable estimate.

While students are quick to grasp the idea behind the liquidated damages clause, their substantive errors fall into three general categories:

1) writing a clause that does not actually liquidate damages.  If the proposed clause simply describes the producers’ damages in a qualitative way, such as “all promotional expenses incurred at the time of the breach”, it does not provide the certainty of a fixed sum or a sum calculated according to an easy formula, which is the purpose of liquidated damages clauses. 

2) choosing a very conservative amount to avoid unenforceability as a penalty – certainly one can make sure the LD clause is enforceable by using a fixed sum that will always be less than actual damages, but that isn’t very good advocacy for the client seeking the LD clause.

3)  unhelpful recitals – it can be helpful to recite facts that support the fixed sum of damages in the LD clause, but only if those facts support the enforceability of the clause, by establishing the uncertainty of potential damages and the reasonableness of the estimate.

How, fellow teachers, might ask, does one grade 50 to 100 drafting exercises without consuming unreasonable amounts of time that could otherwise be spent on blogging and other key professorial duties?  I have adopted several strategies to get students writing while preserving my own sanity.  First, I have the writing exercises done in groups, not only to economize grading time, but because real-life lawyers typically collaborate on much of their writing, and it is never too early to learn to work with others.  Second, I try to keep writing exercises extremely short, such as drafting a one- or two-paragraph contract clause rather than an entire agreement.  Third, I provide limited written feedback in lieu of a grade, or in some cases assign a grade on a very simplified scale intended only to differentiate those who took the exercise seriously from those who did not.  Reading and writing feedback for the 15 liquidated damage clauses in this instance took me about 3 hours total.  Time well worth investing in the worthy goal of writing across the curriculum, while also reinforcing much of the material in remedies.

Professor Telman and I are on different topics at the moment, but will shortly be back in synch, at which point perhaps we can liven up the dialogue a bit. 

[Posted, on Alan's behalf, by Jeremy Telman]

"Roxanne's Revenge": A PhD on Warner Music [File This In: Awesome Contracts Stories]

As Gawker tells it:

Heartwarming story of the day: Back in the 80s, Warner Music tossed a clause in then-teenage rapper Roxanne Shante's contract saying they'd pay for her education for life. So she got a psychology Ph.D from Cornell. Cost: $217K. Ha.

A little more detail from the Daily News:

After two albums, Shante said, she was disillusioned by the sleazy music industry and swindled by her record company. The teen mother, living in the Queensbridge Houses, recalled how her life was shattered.

"Everybody was cheating with the contracts, stealing and telling lies," she said. "And to find out that I was just a commodity was heartbreaking."

But Shante, then 19, remembered a clause in her Warner Music recording contract: The company would fund her education for life.

She eventually cashed in, earning a Ph.D. in psychology from Cornell to the tune of $217,000 - all covered by the label. But getting Warner Music to cough up the dough was a battle.

And, Roxanne's Revenge:

Here's to you, Dr. Shante!

[Meredith R. Miller]

On Paris, Zsa Zsa, 1988 and Alternative Measures of Damages

As summer wanes and 1L orientation draws to a close, it is part of the sweet rhythm of academia that a colleague inevitably says something like: "every year, they get younger."  I'll admit, this year, I was the one who said it.  And, in response, I was reminded that, of this incoming 1L class, there are some students who were born in 1988.  1988!  (Apparently, at Northwestern, there's an incoming 1-L who may have been born in the 90's).  (Image of Zsa Zsa, courtesy of Wikimedia Commons).

This has a lot to do with contracts, or at least the teaching of the subject.  

In a previous post, I had asked if anyone happened upon a copy of the Goldberg v. Hilton decision.  Ask on the glorious interwebs and ye shall receive.  (Thanks, Eric Talley (Berkeley)). 

Here's a copy of the decision: Download SLJQZ9-GoldbergvHilton.  I think you'll agree that the facts provide a good example of the certainty limitation on damages, as well as the reliance v. restitution measure of damages.  In the past, as an example on these points, I have used (and will continue to use) the Zsa Zsa Gabor case, Hollywood Fantasies.  (The one where the celebrity fantasy vacation business bombs and the promoters blame it all on Zsa Zsa canceling her gig - purportedly because she had to film her 30 second cameo in Naked Gun 2 1/2).  This year, I will try offering Goldberg v. Hilton as another example, given that involves an element of current (though similarly inexplicable) celebrity. My students born in 1988 might be interested.  

Try it.  If you just can't resist showing your relative age in pop-culture markers, you can mention that, for a time in the late 1940's, Zsa Zsa was married to Paris Hilton's great grandfather.

[Meredith R. Miller]

Another Take on the Van Halen "No Brown M&M's Rider"

Perhaps the most famous contract in rock history is Van Halen’s 1982 World Tour rider.  It contains the legendary requirement that the band be provided with a bowl of M&M’s in the dressing room, with all brown M&M’s removed from the bowl.  Actually, the rider states, on the topic of Munchies: 

M&M’s (WARNING: ABSOLUTELY NO BROWN ONES)

You can check out the rider here if you’d like.

Until recently, the famous Brown M&M’s rider seemed nothing more than an example of the frivolity of the rock star ego.  Then I listened to an alternative explanation, courtesy of NPR’s fabulous radio show This American Life.

In an episode titled “The Fine Print,” with the help of John Flansburgh of They Might Be Giants, we are offered a business reason for the M&M's clause of the rider.  

Apparently, beyond the backstage food and drink requirements, tour riders contain very important instructions that affect how smoothly the show will run -- for example, electricity or weight requirements for the band’s gear.  Well, if the promoter at the local venue does not read the rider, it is likely that something will go very wrong at the show.  So, Van Halen used the M&M’s for signaling purposes: if there were no brown M&M’s in the bowl, the band knew that the local promoter read the rider.  If the brown M&M’s were there, the band knew that the local promoter had not read the rider carefully, and technical and safety requirements might not have been met.

You can give the show a listen here.  The Van Halen part is in the very beginning of the show, but it is well worth listening to the entire show.

[Meredith R. Miller] 

Stephen Colbert's Misconceptions about Contracts

Stephen Colbert (pictured before he discovered that he is a Winter) has done the world of contracts a tremendous favor by mentioning contracts on his television show, The Colbert Report, which is fast becoming America's favorite source for fake news commentary. Unfortunately, much of what he has to say about contracts is (dare I say it?) wrong! And this is the first time that I can recall that Stephen has been wrong about anything. Well, I'm a loyal viewer, but still, I have to stand up for what I believe in -- or teach -- or something like that. So, here we go.

The episode in question can be found here. About six-minutes into the episode, right after the bit about reports that Sanjay Gupta might become Surgeon General and change the shape of our food pyramid to reflect his own eating habits, comes a report on the Obama transition. According to Colbert, the Obama website says "We need to update the social contract." Colbert objects in the following terms:

I have negotiated a great social contract for myself. I'm famous, I'm rich, and I've got dental. . . [*ching*]. Besides, the main point of a contract is that you can't change it. That's why I had to fake my own death to get out of my endorsement deal with "GOOD- on-Ya" Australian cologne: "Splash It 'Down Under'" . . . . I was starting to attract dingoes.

There are many problems with this statement. First, it's not clear that the social contract is really a contract at all. Second, Restatement s. 89 permits the modification of an existing contract without additional consideration in circumstances that might apply to the social contract, if it is a contract. The UCC's s. 2-209 is more permissive still on the subject of modifications. Stephen, it's like you've never heard of Karl Llewellyn! Third, contracts doctrine provides many excuses other than faking one's own death to permit celebrities to get out of their endorsements. Most celebrities choose the DUI route, but there are plenty of other activities that can trigger a morals clause. Finally, faking one's own death is rarely effective when one announces having done so on national television -- even if it is cable.

Stephen, obviously your show needs a writer with some genuine legal expertise. You know where to reach me. Just check the caller ID from when I called you at 1-800-OOPSJEW last Yom Kippur.

[Jeremy Telman]

Terri Hatcher Is a Woman of the Highest Integrity

All Headline News reports that last year, cosmetics maker Hydroderm accused Terri Hatcher (pictured) of endorsing other products while under contract to endorse its anti-aging products exclusively.  One would have to wonder about a person who would have to endorse, according to the original accusations, 22 different anti-aging products.  Fortunately, it was all just one of those bizarre misunderstandings.  Hydroderm has now apologized to Ms. Hatcher and withdrawn its lawsuit, reported on in People Magazine here, in which it sought the return of $2.4 million paid to Ms. Hatcher as an endorsement fee.

Now, Hydroderm is making up with Hatcher, praising her as a "woman of the highest integrity."  That may well be true, but she'll always be Lois Lane to me.  Ahhh, Terri, in those days, even Lex Luthor armed with Kryptonite couldn't make you age!

[Jeremy Telman]

Dr. Pepper, At Long Last, Have You Left No Sense of Decency?

Earlier we praised Dr. Pepper on this blog for living up to its agreement to provide a free soda to everyone in America if the new Guns N' Roses album were to appear this year. But now the New York Times reports that lawyers for Axl Rose (pictured) are angry that Dr. Pepper has not in fact made good on its promise. Apparently, Dr. Pepper's website crashed as soda-starved Rose fans stormed the site on the appointed day. The company extended the deadline to apply for a free bottle of soda until Monday, but Mr. Rose, whose recent album took 14 years to complete, has no patience with delays. The Times reports that Mr. Rose's lawyers want Dr. Pepper to take out full-page ads in major newspapers apologizing to Mr. Rose's fans and extending the deadline for the free giveaway.

The Times provides choice excerpts from Mr. Rose's lawyers' letter here.

[Jeremy Telman]

The King of Pop Settles with Bahraini Prince

Alas, Michael Jackson's fans will have to wait for his next law suit if they want to hear him testify. As reported earlier on this blog, Sheikh Abdulla bin Hamad Al Khalifa, second son of the King of Bahrain, alleged that he loaned Mr. Jackson money when Jackson was having liquidity problems during and after his child molestation trial in 2005. Mr. Jackson apparently construed the cash infusions as gifts. According to the New York Times, Mr. Jackson, always gifted when it comes to creating buzz, first sought to testify via video and then said that he would testify in person. In the end, the parties entered into a settlement, the terms of which were . . . not disclosed. There were air kisses all around.

[Jeremy Telman]

World's Worst Director Ordered to Pay $2.1 Million for Breach of Contract

Many have called Uwe Boll (pictured) among the world's worst directors. For example, here, here, here, here, and here. Boll has not taken the criticism standing down. Rather, he has challenged his critics to boxing matches and easily bested them (you can view a video of three quick boxing matches on the New York Times website). Boll was gracious after pummeling his critics. In an interview reprinted in The Guardian, he said:

They were badmouthing me but they showed balls going into the ring. Now they are brain dead and they will like my movies.

Still, the criticism has only increased. In fact, there is a website devoted to trying to get him to stop making movies. Now that's pretty cold. There is another website devoted to convincing people that Uwe Boll is an antiChrist (or the antiChrist -- the website isn't entirely clear on that one). Ouch. Let me be very clear here. I don't have an opinion about Uwe Boll, and I don't box. All I will say is this: Ben Kingsley?

But now Mr. Boll has more pressing problems. As The Hollywood Reporter here reports, a Los Angeles court has now affirmed an arbitrator's judgment ordering the German director to pay his distributor $2.1 million in damages for for breach of contract and libel. The libel claims stems from disparaging e-mails that Boll sent to Fantastic Films International's customers. Press reports are necessary as to the details of the breach of contract claims, but apparently Boll has exclusive distribution agreements with Fantasy Films and either sought to distribute his films through other partnerships or failed to pay commissions due to the distributor. The real shocker (or perhaps reel shocker -- ha ha ha!) is that the films (some of which were honored with a placement on IMDb's Bottom 100) were to be distributed in over 45 countries. I suppose the fact that Mr. Boll's movies are not popular with critics does not rule out the possibility of commercial appeal.

[Jeremy Telman]

Two Princes and One King Involved in Breach of Contract Suits

First, as reported in eflux Media here, Revelations Perfume and Cosmetics is suing the artist formerly known as the artist formerly known as "Prince" (now, just Prince again -- pictured), as well as his music publisher, Universal. The perfume company alleges that Prince and Universal have failed to live up to their contractual obligations to promote two fragrances released in conjunction with Prince's 2006 studio recording, "3121." According to Revelations, the company spent $2.5 million developing the scents and agreed to pay Universal half the profits from the products in return for Prince's and Universal's efforts to promote them. Those efforts have been lacking according to Revelations. Unconfirmed reports suggest that Prince has been reluctant to promote the products because he feared hearing calls of "Hey, Prince, 3121 stinks!!"

In other princely news, Google News reports that a Bahraini prince is suing King of Pop, Michael Jackson, alleging a $7 million breach of contract. Sheikh Abdulla bin Hamad Al Khalifa, second son of the King of Bahrain, alleges that he loaned Mr. Jackson money when Jackson was having liquidity problems during and after his child molestation trial in 2005. Mr. Jackson apparently construed the cash infusions as gifts. In the alternative, Google News reports that Mr. Jackson is alleging the affirmative defenses of mistake, misrepresentation and undue influence. In happier times, the Prince and the King had a "close personal relationship" and collaborated on a song. The Prince wrote the song and Mr. Jackson recorded it. The song was to be released as a charity single intended to raise money for the victims of the 2004 tsunami. Instead, that recording is now slated to have its debut as a trial exhibit.

[Jeremy Telman]

Keith Olbermann Contract

Remember the Simpsons episode in which Homer invests in pumpkin futures and blithely predicts that the sky's the limit as the calendar moves into November? Well, no matter. Fresh from a huge spike in ratings for Keith Olbermann's show "Countdown with Keith Olbermann," as the New York Times reports, MSNBC has torn up its 4-year contract with Olbermann (pictured) entered into last year and replaced it with one that is almost twice as rich. Olbermann will now earn $7.5 million a year through the next Presidential elections in 2012.

Operating on the assumption that its viewers could never tire of Keith, the network also announced that Olbermann will play a prominent role in all major news events and will be a co-host of NBC's "Football Night in America." Chris Matthews could not be reached for comment. No offense to Keith; I enjoy a slightly unhinged political rant as much as anybody, but it's as if MSNBC believed that viewers became hooked on "Countdown" during the election season and will be unable to shake the addiction. I started watching the show occasionally during the last weeks of the campaign and I haven't thought about going back there since election day. $7.5 million a year! That's extraordinary! Where do they think Keith Olbermann will go if they don't pay him more than the $4 million a year they agreed to in February 2007? CNN? Fox News?

Moreover, as MSNBC's former president, Erik Sorenson, told the Associated Press, with reference to Olbermann and fellow MSNBC host, Rachel Maddow,

That said, the wrong guys won the election for MSNBC. If McCain won, Keith and Rachel would have a lot to talk about. The audience would have a lot to be angry about and focused on.

Here's to a decline in anger over the next four years!

[Jeremy Telman]

Marvin v. Marvin Updated: The Tim Burton Case

Since we have just posted a Limerick commemorating the most celebrated of palimony cases, Marvin v. Marvin, it is worthy of note that, as MSNBC reports, Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Teresa Sanchez-Gordon issued an order on September 16th of this year finding that director Tim Burton's ex, Lisa Marie, is not entitled to a share of his wealth based on their long-term relationship. Mr. Burton is pictured at left. Ms. Marie is so breathtakingly beautiful that posting pictures of her cannot be risked. Actually, she is featured in the video below. According to the wikipedia entry for Lisa Marie, the two were engaged from 1993-2001 and during that time, she was seen but not heard in several of Mr. Burton's films. At the time the pair separated, Mr. Burton agreed to provide her with, among other things, $5.5 million, a New York apartment and a car. That agreement was found valid and enforceable. But Lisa Marie claims that she was coerced into signing the agreement, that Mr. Burton had promised during their relationship to support her throughout her life, and that she is now so poor she cannot even afford a proper last name.

This video provides some sense of what the couple's life was like in happier times:

[Jeremy Telman]

Contracts Limerick of the Week: Marvin v. Marvin

Marvin v. Marvin provides for wonderful opportunities to discuss social issues relating to promises made in the context of marriages and other forms of cohabitation. Lee Marvin and Michelle Triola Marvin lived together for six years. At the start of their relationship, Lee was married to Betty Ebeling. At the end of his relationship with Triola, Lee Marvin married Pamela Freeley. Triola alleged that she and Lee had entered into an agreement whereby they would hold themselves out as husband and wife and that they would "share equally any and all property accumulated as a result of their efforts." After the demise of their relationship, Triola sought to enforce the alleged agreement, seeking a settlement in excess of $1 million. The trial court denied Triola relief, finding such promises unenforceable on public policy grounds. The Supreme Court of California, over a strident dissent that referred to the relationship as "meretricious," found that promises of the sort alleged can be enforced by a court and that such promises can also be implied through conduct.

In this particular case, the trial court on remand found that there was no agreement between the parties of the kind alleged by Triola. Apparently, the court found it unlikely that Marvin could have promised half his income to Triola while still married to his first wife. Moreover, while Triola could have recovered in quantum meruit for the non-sexual services she provided to Lee, she had already been duly compensated during the course of the relationship. The trial court's award of $104,000 in "rehabilitation" damages to Triola was overturned on appeal. Not to worry. Michelle knows how to land on her feet. According to her Wikipedia entry, she has lived with Dick van Dyke (pictured) for many years.

Oooooh, Rob! How could you ever leave Laura?!?

The case is especially timely these days with the on-going controversy over recognizing gay marriages and civil unions. Interestingly, some of my women students had very little sympathy for women who live for many years out-of-wedlock with men, bear and help raise the couple's children and support the man of the house while he pursues an education and a profitable career. This new feminism (or post-feminism or whatever it is) puts the burden on women in relationships to demand legal recognition of their status. But when it came to gay relationships, many of these same women changed their tune. Where marriage is not an option, the law must protect the rights and interests of people who commit to long-term cohabitation partnerships, regardless of gender and regardless of the nature of the relationship.

I've tried a couple of variants here.  You can vote for your favorite!!

Marvin v. Marvin

The Marvin court's ruling's propitious
For relationships non-meretricious.
Michelle can recover
From Lee, her ex-lover,
If his promises weren't capricious.

Michelle and Lee lived in sin,
A fact once viewed with chagrin.
Now she can recover
From her ex-lover
If he promised to keep her in gin.

[Jeremy Telman]

Robin Williams v. Frank & Beans: A Couple of Dicks

E! Online reports that Robin Williams is suing a production company by the name of Frank & Beans for $6 million. E! also provides the complaint, which alleges causes of action for breach of contract and promissory estoppel here. According to the complaint, Williams was to be paid $6 million for making a film called "A Couple of Dicks." The filming was supposed to begin in April. In March, defendant Frank & Beans and its parent company Gold Circle Films (also a defendant) notified Williams that the film had been shelved. Williams alleges that his agreement was "pay or play," and that defendants had agreed to pay him his $6 million whether or not the film was produced.

Nice work if you can get it.

The contract also allegedly specified that Mr. Williams would get top billing. I wonder how the other Dick felt about that.

[Jeremy Telman]

L'il Kim and a L'suit

According to the New York Times, rap star L'il Kim has been enjoined temporarily from recording new music. A New York Supreme Court Justice set November 5th as the date for a hearing on the injunction. Independent label Brookland Media seeks $2.5 million from L'il Kim on a breach of contract claim. Brookland alleges that it paid $300,000 to buy out L'il Kim's contract with Atlantic Records. In return, L'il Kim agreed to record a new album with Brookland, but by the end of the summer she had only recorded three tracks.

According to lalate.com, L'il Kim views the lawsuit as a bargaining strategy: Brookland is simply seeking to "leverage its position" in a contract dispute. EURweb.com provides further details: L'il Kim's attorney describes Brookland as "wonderful people" with whom L'il Kim expects to do business. However, L'il Kim's attorney claims, Brookland did not honor the terms of their agreement.

[Jeremy Telman]

Fashion Faux-Pas Could Cost Actress $20 Million

The Wall Street Journal's Law Blog reports that Charlize Theron has been "cheating on" Raymond Weil, cuckolding the Swiss watchmaker through a dangerous liaison with Dior.  Raymond Weil claims that Theron was caught in flagrante delicto when she wore a Dior watch in Texas and other Dior jewelry in advertisements.  The Smoking Gun website provides the complaint here. 

The WSJ's Law Blog now reports that Raymond Weil won a summary judgment from New York's Southern District on September 30th.  The opinion can be found here.

HT: James Saqui

[Jeremy Telman]

Letterman Resorts to Self Help

On Wednesday, John McCain announced that he was suspending his Presidential campaign so that he can help fix the current financial crisis. As a result, he had to back out of his promised appearance on the "Late Show with David Letterman".

According to the Los Angeles Times, McCain told Letterman that he had to cancel his appearance on Letterman's show so that he could rush to the airport and head to Washington. However, during the taping of his show, Letterman learned that McCain was not only still in New York, he was a few blocks away preparing to be interviewed by Katie Couric.

Letterman seems to viewed McCain's conduct as an actionable breach of contract. Rather than filing a complaint, he attempted to extract damages from the politician with the comedic tools at hand: The L.A. Times reports Letterman's commentary on the live feed that the "Late Show" played of McCain getting ready for his interview with Couric.

“He doesn’t seem to be racing to the airport, does he?” Letterman said, shouting at the television monitor: “Hey, John, I got a question! You need a ride to the airport?”

Letterman didn't stop there. He devoted much of the show to berating McCain for jilting him and for not sending Vice Presidential nominee, Sarah
Palin in his stead.

Apparently, Letterman is not the type to just let things go. According to the Los Angeles Times, Letterman devoted considerable air time to savaging the McCain campaign yet again Thursday night.

[Jeremy Telman]