ContractsProf Blog

Alleged Former Manager's Claims against Britney Spears Dismissed

Sam Lufti, former self-proclaimed manager to Britney Spears (left), filed suit against the “Baby One More Time” pop-star for breach of contract, against her father for assault and battery, and against her mother for defamation. Lutfi alleges he had a multi-year contract with the singer that entitled him to 15% of her income. However, as reported here by the New York Daily News, Lufti was unable to recall ever telling a single person that Spears promised to pay him 15% of her income, nor was he able to produce an adequate written contract. He could only provide a form contract that  he downloaded from the internet, which he claimed he had used to make an oral agreement with Ms. Spears.

As reported on Fox News here, the suit was dismissed on Friday as Mr. Lufti was able to make out any of his claims against Ms. Spears or her parents.

[Christina Phillips & JT]

Can You Trump This Unilateral Contract Offer?

 

Although I am loathe to increase publicity for someone as publicity-hungry as "The Donald," I am confident that our loyal readers will permit me this one post. A few first semester Contracts students sent me a link to the above video and suggested that this was a great example of an offer to enter into a reward-style unilateral contract. I told them I'd oblige them and post it here.  It clearly identifies the one person who can accept, the manner and mode of acceptance, and the performance sought in return for Trump's promise.  In case you've been living under a rock ignoring anything political lately, the performance he seeks is President Obama's submission of passport and college application records (which Trump reportedly believes indicate a place of birth of Kenya).  The offered reward is Trump's promise to donate $5 million to a charity of the president's choice.

The president's fantastic response from The Tonight Show is posted below.

 

Not to be outdone, Stephen Colbert has offered up his own reward, the nature of which was, well...see for yourself (viewer discretion strongly advised).

  

[Heidi R. Anderson]

Umo O. Ironbar on Cunningham: A Law Student’s Viewpoint on Contracts in the Real World

The following post is cross-posted from an online symposium that previously appeared on Concurring Opnions.  The original post can be found here.

As promised, the following is contributed by Professor Miriam Cherry's student, Umo O. Ironbar:

As a 1L student at Saint Louis University, reading the conditions materials in Professor Lawrence Cunningham’s Contracts in the Real World Stories of Popular Contracts was refreshing.

We looked at a deal that Kevin Costner went into for the creation of massive bronze bison sculptures which would be put in place in his luxury resort in South Dakota named The Dunbar (a tribute to his successful production of his 1990 movie “Dancing With Wolves). Another case we looked at was Charlie Sheen’s “play-or-pay” contract with Warner Brothers.

These cases are still so vivid in my mind because I actually knew who the parties were. Unlike other cases that could have been found in my regular contracts textbook, I did not have to wait until the notes and questions sections after the cases to know why these cases were so important or infamous, or why they made the selection into the textbook out of the hundreds of thousands of cases that have been tried.

I grew up watching Kevin Costner and Charlie Sheen on the big screen and television. They are both successful actors – and both had more than their share of controversy. When we read about Charlie Sheen our class was abuzz and more people wanted to speak and contribute to the class discussion. For me and many of my fellow classmates, the excitement came in part because Charlie Sheen was everywhere in the news and Internet. Everyone was just waiting to see what new eccentric behavior he was going show at any given time or day.

And here in my contracts class, we were actually talking about his legal issues. For me, it made the concepts we were learning more real. Conditions as defined by Restatement (Second) of Contracts, Section 224 made more sense to me. Conditions were no longer just words that were only used in law school academia.

I feel like many of the law students who will read Professor Cunningham’s contracts book will find it easier to follow the parties who are involved in the cases. Sometimes the biggest obstacle in understanding a case and what it is about is just being able to follow who the parties are and thus why they are in court. In using cases that involve people and stories we as students are familiar with, the materials make it easier for us to grasp the concepts and laws the courts are using to resolve breach of contract cases.

[Posted by JT]

Cherry on Cunningham, Post III: Using Contracts in the Real World in the Classroom

The following post is cross-posted from an online symposium that previously appeared on Concurring Opnions.  The original post can be found here.

Miriam Cherry is Professor of Law at Saint Louis University School of Law. Some of her scholarship can be found at this link on SSRN.

Aside from the deeper theoretical questions that Prof. Cunningham raises about contract theory in Contracts in the Real World,  the heart of the book is in its fun, rollicking, and thoroughly modern examples.

Every contracts professor should take a look at this book to glean ideas for real-world examples and hypotheticals.  Even if your textbook is stuck in the world of itinerant homesteaders, ships using astrolabes for navigation, and delayed industrial components (shout out to Kirksey, Raffles, and Hadley v. Baxendale!), your students will appreciate the use of some fun celebrity stories to liven up the classroom discussion.

The last time that I taught Contracts, for example, I did a series of hypotheticals based on Charlie Sheen’s contractual troubles.  Based on Prof. Cunningham’s materials, I was able to structure some hypotheticals based on Sheen for my unit on conditions.    The students seemed to appreciate it, and in fact, I have asked a student from my class last year to share her impressions with our blog readers. It appears here. 

[Posted by JT]

Erik Gerding on Cunningham: Contracts Outside the Box

Erik Gerding is an Associate Professor at the University of Colorado Law School

The following post is cross-posted from an online symposium that previously appeared on Concurring Opnions.  The original post can be found here.

Let me start out with a criticism of Larry’s book: it is too much fun. I had a hard time breaking off just a chunk of Contracts in the Real World to write about and found myself spending several hours reading one interesting vignette after another on famous and infamous contracts.

The book will make a wonderful companion text to a traditional contracts casebook. Its value is not just in its engaging account of contract stories or in giving context to chestnut cases, but in providing a very intuitive framework for understanding contract law. The traditional contracts course, perhaps by virtue of having the doctrine of consideration at its heart, can be one of the most confusing in the One-L year. Students are often left to divine the inner structure (or lack thereof) of contract law on their own, likely while cramming for finals. Sometimes the epiphany comes. For many students it does not.

Larry has a real genius for laying out the doctrinal building blocks in a very thoughtful and accessible structure. He groups cases around a rough life cycle of contracts, with chapters devoted to “Getting In: Contract Formation,” to “Facing Limits: Unenforceable Bargains,” to “Paying Up: Remedies.” The layout of the book combined with its lucid writing demystifies contracts.

The layout may at first appear to make this book an ill fit as a companion text to many case books, because many of the cases appear in Contracts in the Real World under a different doctrinal heading than in a particular case book. For example, in the case book I currently use Batsakis v. Demotsis appears in the chapter on “consideration.” Larry places this classic next to cases on unconscionability. I also teach Lucy, Lady Duff Gordon in consideration, while Larry situates it in “Performing: Duties, Modification, Good Faith.”

These differences actually demonstrate a strength of the book. Some disconnect between the organization of a primary case book and a companion text forces students to move beyond a facile understanding of contract law in terms of rigid doctrines. Seeing cases in different contexts and fitting into different doctrinal boxes can help students see that lawyering involves more than memorizing black letter rules and putting issues into the right doctrinal box. Indeed, sometimes different doctrinal boxes can apply to the same problem and lead to the same result (witness rules on past consideration and duress). At other times, the choice of the doctrinal box makes a huge difference (see those same two doctrines). Accomplished students can move from memorizing blackletter law to seeing the possibility of creative lawyering. Larry’s organization – both intuitive and surprising – will help students at both stages.

One final strength of the book is Larry’s choice to include not only court cases but many contemporary contract disputes that never reached the courtroom (such as the dispute between NBC and Conan O’Brien). This brings into the classroom a wider panorama of how lawyers encounter and shape contractual problems in practice. After all, few contracts and few lawyers find their way into a courtroom. Most disputes are resolved in the shadow of law.

I also have a wish list for Larry’s next project (from personal experience, I can tell you how invigorating it is for an author who has just finished a book to be asked “what’s next?’). One of the limitations of the traditional contracts curriculum is how rarely students read and interpret – let alone negotiate or draft – actual contracts. It would be incredibly helpful as a professor to have some of the source contracts behind these stories. Although some of these contracts are already contained in a judicial opinion (Carbolic Smoke Ball) and many will not be public (Conan’s deal with NBC), others might be available with some digging. Having real and full contracts would allow professors to meet many of the items on Professor Collins’ wish list, such as transactional perspectives and drafting exercises. Although some lawyers litigate over failed contractual relationships, many more help parties plan prospectively – including by drafting and negotiating deals. For most attorneys, contracts are not an autopsy subject, to be dissected in a court opinion, but a living thing.

Professor Cunningham’s book provides a joyful reminder of the life in contracts.

[Posted by JT]

District Court Rules on Paramount's Motion to Dismiss Puzo Estate's Counterclaims

The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York recently awarded a partial win to the Estate of Mario Puzo (author of the popular novel “The Godfather”) when it denied Paramount Pictures Corp.’s (Paramount) motion to dismiss the Estate’s breach of contract counterclaim, which Paramount claimed was preempted by the Copyright Act. The win was indeed partial in that the District Court dismissed the Estate’s remaining counterclaims.  The issue at the heart of the parties' dispute, whether book publishing rights to all sequels were among the rights that Puzo sold to Paramount, was not before the court on Paramount’s motion to dismiss.

The Estate's breach of contract claim is based on a 1969 Agreement between Puzo Sr. and Paramount, (the details of which we recently blogged about here), through which Paramount claims that Puzo signed over all publishing rights regarding any sequel to “The Godfather.”   Based on some language that the parties left out of the 1969 agreement, the Estate reads Paramount's rights more narrowly and alleges that Paramount repudiated and breached the 1969 Agreement when it interfered with rights allegedly reserved in the Estate. In fact, the District Court noted, the Estate is seeking to characterize as repudiation conduct that simply contradicted the Estate's narrow reading of Paramount's contractual rights.  Under New York law, such conduct does not constitute a repudiation unless a party advances an untenable contract interpretation in order to avoid its contractual obligations.  The Court hinted that there was no evidence that Paramount had ever sought to escape its contractual obligations and thus seems to have tipped its hand that it sees no merit in the Estate's breach of contract claim.  However, as Paramount did not move to dismiss on that basis, the court moved on to the preemption issue.  

The District Court rejected Paramount's argument that federal copyright law preempts the Estate's breach of contract claim.  The elements required to prove the Estate’s claim differ from those needed to establish copyright infringement.  Instead of proof of a valid copyright and copying of protected elements of a copyrighted work, the Estate must establish that Paramount had a contractual obligation not to interfere with its exercise of book publishing rights and that Paramount breached that obligation.  Moreover, the Court pointed out,  “a copyright is a right against the world,” providing for exclusive rights in the holder. In contrast, the Estate’s claimed right is one that creates a potential liability in Paramount if it should breach. Everyone else can do as they please.

In sum, because the Estate’s claim focuses on a contractual obligation outside federal copyright law, it is not preempted and Paramount’s motion to dismiss the Estate's breach of contract claim on that basis was denied.

[Christina Phillips and JT]

Is Boyz II Men v. Aaron Rodgers the New Lucy v. Zehmer?

Last night, the Green Bay Packers redeemed themselves against the Chicago Bears after a disappointing Week 1 loss to the San Francisco 49ers. However, the Packers' quarterback, Aaron Rodgers, still has not redeemed himself after allegedly backing out on a bet with Nathan Morris of the R&B group, Boyz II Men.  The terms of their original deal reportedly were as follows: (i) Boyz II Men agreed to perform the national anthem before the Packers' week 1 game with the 49ers at Lambeau Field; and (ii) in exchange, Aaron Rodgers agreed to wear a 49ers jersey but only if the Packers lost to the 49ers.  (Even though Boyz II Men were part of the "East Coast Family" of the 1990s, they're apparently fans of a West Coast NFL team, the San Francisco 49ers. But I digress.)  Sounds like a pretty straightforward promise to perform in exchange for a promise to perform subject to a condition precedent, right?  Well, Boyz II Men performed, and the 49ers won, but... Aaron Rodgers has not worn the 49ers jersey.  Cue the Twittersphere and TMZ.  Rodgers, like Zehmer, claims that his jersey-wearing promise was a joke.  In this interview clip, Rodgers says, "It was a [unintelligible] joke between friends" that's been "blown out of proportion."  Morris claims it was a serious deal, tweeting after the game that he "was pressing the jersey now."  However, Boyz II Men also suggested they will give Aaron Rodgers more time to perform.  If not, anyone want to represent them against Rodgers?  Or is this the End of the Road for this matter?

[Heidi R. Anderson]

Update Regarding "Earth, Wind & Contract"

In March, we briefly mentioned a contract-based royalty payment dispute between one member of the disco group Earth, Wind and Fire, and the children of a deceased member of the group.  According to this story, the defendant, Maurice White, now has responded in court.  (It is unclear whether White's response was an answer to the complaint, a motion for summary judgment, or something else).  White alleges that there was no oral agreement pursuant to which he was to pay royalties and that, if there was an oral agreement, it is not enforceable.  This could end up being a good case to discuss when presenting the statute of frauds.  Expect another post if/when I am able to find the court filings.

[Heidi R. Anderson]

Julianna Margulies Plays "The Good Wife," But Is She a Good Client?

 

Julianna Margulies, from Wikimedia Commons

Talent management company D/F Management, (D/F) has filed this complaint in the Superior Court of California against actress Julianna Margulies, alleging breach of an oral contract.  D/F alleges that in early February, 2009, Margulies agreed that in consideration for D/F’s services to her, she would turn over 10% of all gross revenue earned through Margulies' employment in the entertainment industry. 

According to the Complaint and attached lovey-dovey e-mails, the parties got along swimmingly, with D/F assisting Margulies in landing the lead role in The Good Wife and a contract to promote L’Oreal cosmetics.  However, in April 2011, Margulies terminated her relationship with D/F and stopped paying the 10% commission.  D/F contends that, under industry custom, Margulies remains responsible for ongoing payment of 10% of her gross from industry work that D/F helped her get.  D/F seeks damages of no less than $420,000 and declaratory relief entitling D/F to 10% of Margulies earnings on from The Good Wife and L’Oreal going forward. 

An interesting aside.  The Complaint quotes an e-mail that Margulies allegedly sent to D/F in happier times.  As quoted, the e-mail reads as follows:

I'm tryng [sic] to figure out the situation [with my entertainment attorney] who I love, but I've been paying him a lot of money my whole career, he gets 5% of everything I do, but really only works once every blue moon for me, and I am finding that actors don't do that with lawyers anymore, they all do flat rates.  With the 3rd year coming up, (i'm [sic] talking about the syndication deal etc....) it feels like too much money going out for such minimal work and I just want to see what other clients are doing . . . .

As to this, we have two comments.  First, it looks like Margulies might soon be getting her money's worth out of her attorney.  Second, who puts "sic" in a quoted e-mail?!?  And why put a "sic" after "tryng" and "i'm" while ignoring, e.g., all of the comma splices, not to mention the questionable choice of "who" over "whom" in "who I love"?  If you "sic" some things but not others, aren't you endorsing all mistakes that escaped your pedantry?

The really surprising thing about all this is that there is no written contract.  D/F refers to an “oral management agreement” that incorporated the “industry custom” of a 10% fee to D/F.  So, while we do not claim any expertise in California law, general contracts principles suggest that if this case proceeds, there will need to be factual determinations as to whether there is indeed such a custom that continues after the termination of the relationship and whether Margulies knew or should have known of it. 

In addition, there would seem to be a Statute of Frauds issue here, since on D/F's view, the contract may not be performable within a year if, for example, Margulies entered into multi-year agreements with either CBS or L'Oreal.

Stay tuned to see how Margulies answers.

[Christina Phillips & JT]

 

Bratz v. Gaga in Breach of Contract Suit

Bratz dolls are no stranger to the blog - we've previously blogged about the Bratz' travails with Barbie.  For those uninitiated, in a previous post, our editor D. A. Jeremy Telman described Bratz as barbies that "dress like prostitutes" (or, his sister did).  Anyway, Bloomberg now reports that Bratz his initiated a contract suit against Lady Gaga (really, her management company).  From Bloomberg:

Pop star Lady Gaga and her management company were sued by MGA Entertainment Inc., the maker of Bratz toys, for failing to approve a line of dolls in her image.

The Van Nuys, California-based company, alleging breach of contract in New York state court, is seeking more than $10 million in damages from the pop star, her management company, Culver City, California-based Atom Factory, and Los Angeles- based Bravado International Group, a merchandising company that works with musicians and music groups.

MGA Entertainment says in the complaint that it agreed to produce dolls in Lady Gaga’s image in December 2011 at Bravado’s “request and insistence” and paid the company a $1 million fee in anticipation of shipping the products to retailers this summer in time for the holiday selling season.

In April, Bravado’s Chief Executive Officer, Tom Bennett, told MGA’s chief executive officer, Issac Larian, that Lady Gaga wanted to delay production and shipping of the dolls until her new album is released in 2013, according to the complaint. MGA says the defendants have continued to withhold final approval in order to delay marketing the dolls until next year and instead sell a licensed Lady Gaga perfume called “Fame.”

‘Bad Faith’

“Defendants’ conduct is egregious, in bad faith and is pretextual, especially in light of the fact that MGA has, among other things, paid Bravado a $1,000,000 advance, agreed to an excessively generous royalty rate, invested millions in the preproduction of the Lady Gaga dolls and put its reputation and goodwill on the line in order to secure distributors and retail shelf space,” MGA Entertainment said in the complaint.

Amanda Silverman, a spokeswoman for Lady Gaga, said the singer hasn’t seen the complaint and has no comment.

“This is a dispute between Universal Music Group’s merchandising company and MGA,” Silverman said in an e-mail. “There was no legitimate reason for dragging Lady Gaga into that dispute. Lady Gaga will vigorously defend MGA’s ill- conceived lawsuit and is confident that she will prevail.”

Peter Lofrumento, a spokesman for Vivendi SA’s Universal Music Group, the parent company of Bravado, said in an e-mail that the claims in the suit are meritless and the company will vigorously defend itself in court.

A telephone message left at the headquarters of Atom Factory wasn’t immediately returned.

[Meredith R. Miller]

 

 

Cast Members of ABC's Modern Family Claim that Their Contracts Are Invalid under "7 Year Rule."

Yesterday, the cast of ABC's hit sitcom, Modern Family, filed a Complaint for Declaratory Relief against the show's production company, Twentieth Century Fox.  (Ed O'Neill, previously of Married...with Children fame, who is compensated differently than his co-stars, has not joined the lawsuit but plans to do so, according to The Hollywood Reporter).  The stars apparently were negotiating pay increases for future seasons 4 through 9 but were not satisfied with the offers they were receiving.  Twentieth Century Fox (and ABC, the network on which the show airs) reportedly offered to increase each cast member's per-episode compensation from around $65,000 to $200,000 for the next few years.  As negotiations broke down, the stars filed suit.  

The named plaintiffs (including Sofia Vergara, Jesse Tyler Ferguson, Eric Stonestreet, Julie Bowen and Ty Burrell) are relying on an interesting legal strategy.  They claim that their employement agreements are "personal service contracts" that are "illegal and void under California law" because they violate the "Seven-Year Rule."  The Seven-Year Rule is codified in California's Labor Code section 2855(a), copied below:

"Except as otherwise provided in subdivision (b), a contract to render personal service, other than a contract of apprenticeship as provided in Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 3070), may not be enforced against the employee beyond seven years from the commencement of service under it. Any contract, otherwise valid, to perform or render service of a special, unique, unusual, extraordinary, or intellectual character, which gives it peculiar value and the loss of which cannot be reasonably or adequately compensated in damages in an action at law, may nevertheless be enforced against the person contracting to render the service, for a term not to exceed seven years from the commencement of service under it. If the employee voluntarily continues to serve under it beyond that time, the contract may be referred to as affording a presumptive measure of the compensation."

The complaint itself does not quote from the code section.  It merely cites the code section and adds this parenthetical: "(personal service contracts are barred from having terms beyond seven years)."  The complaint also does not explain how the law applies to a contract of a shorter duration that provides the employer (Twentieth Century Fox) with the option to extend it beyond seven years. Without citing any cases, it's hard to tell how this law would be interpreted to apply to the cast employment agreements.  However, I am not a California lawyer so I should not go further without doing more research. Anyone know anything about this law?

If I never look into it more deeply, I at least hope to use this case as an example of the importance of researching individual state law rather than thinking, "All I really need to know I learned in Contracts class."

[Heidi R. Anderson] 

Kevin Costner, Usual Suspect of ContractsProf Blog, Beats Actual Usual Suspect, Stephen Baldwin, in Contract Suit

A dispute involving actors Kevin Costner, Stephen Baldwin and the BP Oil Spill?  I couldn't resist.

Earlier this month, a federal district court rejected Stephen Baldwin's request for a new trial in his dispute with Kevin Costner.  In the suit (amended complaint here), Baldwin and another party claimed that agreements they entered into with Costner and others were invalid due to fraud, misrepresentation, and/or mistake.  It appears that Baldwin, Costner, et al. once held varying levels of interest in a closely-held company, Ocean Therapy Solutions, that had developed a special oil cleanup technology.  As part of some internal restructuring, cash infusions, and other maneuvering, Baldwin sold his interest in the company to Costner's group for a mere half million in a Transfer Agreement.  Shortly thereafter, Ocean Therapy Solutions announced a $52 million dollar deal with BP.  Baldwin sought to have the Transfer Agreement-as well as the associated release--declared uneforceable due to fraud.  

In an order rejecting an earlier motion for summary judgment by Costner, the district court stated as follows:

"The plaintiffs assert that the defendants' alleged misrepresentations in the days leading up to the sale of their shares in OTS constitute the kind of fraud that, if proved, is sufficient to vitiate the release agreements.  The Court agrees. The plaintiffs have maintained since the beginning of this lawsuit, that had they known about the completed deal with BP...they would not have sold their interests.  This is not to say, of course, that plaintiffs have met their burden on these questions, but, rather, to suggest that summary relief is not appropriate on this record."

That opinion also contains a nice discussion of how a release agreement may be innvalidated due to fraud under Louisiana law, the civil law system oft-neglected by law professors outside of Louisiana (see pages 11-15).  Athough Baldwin survived summary judgment, his side later lost at trial, and, as noted above, also lost a bid for a new trial.  

This is Costner's 2nd major contract-related victory recently, after this one and related updates.  Perhaps someone at ContractsProf blog needs to seek an interview with his counsel.

[Heidi R. Anderson]

 

 

Ashton Kutcher and Reliance Damages

In his first appearance on ContractsProf blog, Ashton Kutcher was noted for his replacement of Charlie Sheen, famous for violating an alleged morals clause in his contract with the producers of the CBS television series, Two-and-a-Half Men.  In this appearance, his company possibly provides a good example of a party seeking reliance damages.  

Kutcher's company, Katalyst Media, reportedly had a contract with the California DMV (yes, that DMV) to provide access and content for a reality show about "the variously humorous, emotional, dramatic, moving, humanizing and entertaining situations that arise [at the DMV] on a daily basis."  According to the complaint, the DMV later attempted to cancel the arrangement.  In addition to other claims, Kutcher claims that the attempted contract cancellation came after his company had spent money in reliance.  Specifically, the complaintstates:

"In direct reliance upon DMV's promises and commitments...Plaintiffs entered into an agreement with cable television station TruTV....Also in reliance on DMV's promises and commitments...Plaintiffs spent literally hundreds of thousands of dollars in pre-production for the Series, including with respect to casting, hiring of personnel, preparing budgets, negotiating contracts, and other pre-production activities."

The case is particularly interesting because the facts somewhat parallel those in the case I use to teach reliance, Hollywood Fantasy Corp. v. Gabor.  In Gabor, the organizer of fantasy acting camps sued Zsa Zsa Gabor for backing out of one of the camps and allegedly causing all sorts of damages (including, perhaps, the bankrupting of the entire company).  The plaintiff, Leonard Saffir, also alleged that he lost anticipated profits from a "bloopers" show he was planning to sell to a television network based on outtakes from the fantasy camps.  Although Saffir's damages were too uncertain to recover under a traditional expectation-based lost profits theory, he was able to recoup his expenses (such as brochures, advertisting, etc.) incurred in reliance on Ms. Gabor's promise to appear.

I suppose the modern day equivalent to a bloopers show would be some current reality TV shows, including Kutcher's own prior series, Punk'd.  So, from now on, whenever I run across an Ashton Kutcher re-run, I'll automatically think of Leonard Saffir--and reliance.  

[Heidi R. Anderson]

Not Enough (Courtney) Love to Go 'Round?

Courney Love is no stranger to ContractsProf Blog.  I am beginning to think I could teach the whole course through her legal escapades.  Here's a new contracts story from Celebuzz (venerable site of celebrity exclusives):

Courtney Love has found herself wrapped up in legal woes after her former assistant filed a wrongful termination, nonpayment of wages and breach of contract lawsuit last week. But the tables may soon be turned.

Not only has Love’s camp disputed Jessica Labrie‘s claims as “completely unfounded,” but it now asserts that the former employee could find herself in hot water for the suit.

What did Labrie do wrong?

“Miss Labrie signed a very solid confidentiality agreement,” the former Hole frontwoman’s rep, Steve Honig, exclusively tells Celebuzz. “If she has decided to breach that agreement by releasing privileged information covered within that agreement, she could find herself in serious legal jeopardy.”

The statement comes after Celebuzz exclusively uncovered recordings of Love admitting that she owed more than $100,00 to debtors, including a lawyer and a landlord.

In a series of voice messages left for Labrie, the “Pretty on the Inside” artist — the widow of iconic Nirvana frontman Kurt Cobain — said she was in deep debt and could not shell out the woman’s wages.

“What am I supposed to do? Not eat? Live on the streets?” Love bemoaned.

Between the leaked Love tapes and Labrie’s confidentiality contract, the conflict seems to be heating up to a contentious court battle.

Believe it or not, this is relevant to something I am currently researching.  I'm in the early stages of a paper on confidentiality agreements and what exactly they are good for beyond an in terrorem effect (I mean, once the secret is out, it is no longer a secret and how do you prove damages?).  One of the things they are good for is exemplified here: to use defensively.  Assistant sues Courtney Love for breach of contract and Love defends (or countersues) by alleging breach of a confidentiality agreement.

If you are interested, Celebuzz has actually posted the complaint.  If I represented Love, in her papers somewhere, I would write: "Go on, take everything, take everything, I want you to...": 

[Meredith R. Miller]

 

Terrell Owens' Threatens to Sue His Former Indoor Football League Team

According to this article on tmz.com, Terrell Owens (pictured) has given the Indoor Football League Allen Wranglers an ultimatum—issue a public apology and pay him the $160,000 that he claims they owe him (for four games) plus his 50% share of merchandise, tickest and concessions from his time with the team.  

The team claimed that Owens was cut on May 29, 2012 for not intending to play in two upcoming road games with playoff implications and for missing a team event at a local children’s hospital.  He is asking the Allen Wranglers for a public retraction of the statement that he intentionally missed the visit. As reported by Yahoo!sports, Owens claims his contract stated he did not have to play in away games and that the team privately acknowledged that an Allen Wranglers publicist gave him the wrong date concerning the hospital visit.  

TMZ.com had earlier reported that Owens was not only cut, he was evicted from the house provided for him by the team, was ordered to turn over the keys to the 2012 Jeep Chrokee that the team had loaned him, and he was given $50 in payment for his stake in the team.  According to TMZ.com's latest report on the subject, the Allen Wranglers are standing firm, reportedly telling Owens, "You ain't getting a penny."

[JT and Christina Phillips]

Update on Golden Globes Contract Dispute

I previously blogged about the parol evidence rule and interpretation issues at the heart of a dispute between Dick Clark Productions ("DCP") and the Hollywood Foreign Press Association ("HFPA") over broadcast rights for the Golden Globes.  I now have two updates.  

First, the District Court has ruled in favor of DCP in a 89-page opinion posted here by the Hollywood Reporter. Pages 65-78 contain the arguments and holdings regarding the "plain meaning" of the modified contract and the use of extrinsic evidence (citing the commonly-used PG&E case).  Pages 79-81 review HFPA's argument that there was no consideration for the modified contract.  The opinion even contains a helpful discussion of mistake at pages 81-83.   

The second update is that Dick Clark Productions reportedly is up for sale (less than two months after Dick Clark's passing).  It would be interesting to see the DCP-HFPA contract provisions regarding assignment and change of control.  Perhaps there will be a post-sale lawsuit as well.  

Ultimately, I predict that this case appears in Contracts casebooks very soon.  The combination of issues, the high profile nature of the dispute, and the short contractual provision itself, all make it a great candidate. As one lawyer said to the LA Times,"So much litigation over 12 words...."  

Stay tuned (pun intended).

[Heidi R. Anderson]

Breach of Contract Suit Filed Against Wayne Newton

According to USAToday.com, Wayne Newton, aka Mr. Las Vegas, is being sued for breach of contract by  the company that teamed with Newton to turn his 40-acre estate, called Casa de Shanandoah, into a museum. The company, CSD, LLC (CSD), purchased the rights to convert Newton’s 40-acre estate, which features South African penguins, Arabian horses, paintings by Renoir and 17th century antiques collected from European castles, into “Graceland West."  CSD  now alleges that Newton, along with his wife and her mother have unreasonably delayed the project. 

The complaint states that under the terms of the museum deal, the Newtons agreed to move to a $2 million home on the estate constructed by CSD, so that the mansion, which serves as the Newtons current residence, could be converted into a museum.  However, CSD alleges that the Newton family refused to relocate or turn over personal memorabilia.  Graceland West is supposed to feature certain animal attractions as well, but right now there are an extra 35 horses on the property along with large vicious dogs that Mr. New ton allows to roam freely, in spite of the fact that the dogs have attacked and bitten people on more than a dozen occasions. The dogs are also credited with killing 75 birds in the estate's aviary, as well as the occasional peacock.

The complaint details the delapidated condition of Casa de Shanadoah before its infusion of $30 million and its efforts to improve the conditions on the estate.  If you have a interest in descriptions of horses wallowing in their own feces, this is the complaint for you. 

Adding additional spice to the story, the complaint also claims that Newton sexually harassed a female equine management speicalist who was hired to train the horses for hte exhibit.  She is allegedly threatening suit against the parties to the lawsuit.  As reported by USAtoday.com, Newton’s lawyer, J. Stephen Peek, responded to the sexual harassment claims saying the accusations are merely an attempt to “obtain financial gain,” and the woman has been fired.  

Foxnews.com reports that the lawsuit seeks to have the Newton family immediately vacate their estate, Casa de Shenandoah, and allow the $50 million project to move forward.  However, the Newton family claims the lawsuit is a preemptive strike based on their plans to sue the company for breach of contract after multiple construction delays.  The family plans to file a countersuit challenging CSD’s allegations.  

For some reason, Wayne Newton has not played in Valparaiso recently, so we had to go to YouTube to get a sense of what this incomparable performer is like.  Here's a taste:

 

[JT & Christina Phillips]

Update: South Dakota Supreme Court sides with Costner in Breach of Contract Suit

We've mentioned (here and here) the South Dakota case by a sculpture artist against Kevin Costner -- she alleged that Costner's placement of the sculptures (many large, bronze bison) was a breach of their contract.  The Washington Post provides this update:

PIERRE, S.D. — The South Dakota Supreme Court ruled Thursday that actor Kevin Costner did not breach a contract with an artist when he placed commissioned sculptures of bison and American Indians at a different site than was originally planned.

The Hollywood superstar, who filmed much of his Academy Award-winning movie “Dances with Wolves” in South Dakota, paid Peggy Detmers $300,000 to make 17 bronze sculptures for a resort called The Dunbar he planned to build on the edge of the Black Hills gambling town of Deadwood. The resort never was built and the sculptures instead are at his Tatanka attraction near the proposed resort site.

A later contract said if the resort was not built within 10 years or the sculptures were not “agreeably displayed elsewhere,” the sculptures would be sold with Costner and Detmers sharing the proceeds.

Detmers said she spent more than six years creating the sculptures and gave Costner a price break because she anticipated selling smaller reproductions of the sculptures at the resort.

The artist contended in a lawsuit filed in 2008 that because The Dunbar was not built and the sculptures were not “agreeably displayed elsewhere,” the artwork should be sold and she should get 50 percent of the sale proceeds.

But a circuit judge ruled in July that Detmers indicated her approval of the Tatanka location by participating in the site’s development and several events related to its opening in 2003. The Tatanka site, located next to the land where Costner had planned to build The Dunbar, houses the sculptures, a museum and a visitor center.

Detmers argued that she agreed to the placement of the sculptures at the Tantanka site because she was under the impression The Dunbar would still be built.

The Supreme Court unanimously agreed with Circuit Judge Randall L. Macy’s finding that Detmers never received any promise or guarantee that the resort would be built. Detmers knew the resort’s future was questionable, the high court said.

The justices also upheld the trial judge’s ruling that the sculptures have been “agreeably displayed elsewhere,” and that the Tatanka site was separate from the Dunbar site.

On the issue of whether the sculptures had been "agreeably displayed elsewhere," The Court reasoned:

The circuit court concluded as a matter of law that the regular meaning of the term “elsewhere” applied. The court noted that Black’s Law Dictionary defines elsewhere as “in another place, in any other place,” and Webster’s Dictionary defined it as “in or to another place.” See Black’s Law Dictionary 560 (8th ed. 2004). Accordingly, there must first be a designated place to determine if somewhere is “another place.” Paragraph three provides: “if The Dunbar is not built within ten (10) years or the sculptures are not agreeably displayed elsewhere.” (Emphasis added.) The designated place is The Dunbar. The circuit court concluded that “elsewhere” meant at a place other than The Dunbar. And because The Dunbar had not been built, Tatanka was elsewhere.

Costner points out that the circuit court and Detmers both assign “elsewhere” its ordinary meaning, i.e., “in another place.” The analysis diverges on whether “in another place” means another place from The Dunbar itself or from The Dunbar’s intended site. Costner asserts that the circuit court was correct in concluding that “elsewhere” is in a place other than The Dunbar resort itself, which, according to the language, must be built. The land could not be built, but the resort could. Furthermore, the terms of the contract plainly do not say The Dunbar site.

* * *

The plain words of the contract unequivocally provide that if The Dunbar was not built or the sculptures were not agreeably displayed elsewhere, then Detmers would be entitled to the relief described in paragraph three. “Elsewhere” must be understood in relation to the named place in the contract – The Dunbar. Costner is correct that to accept Detmers argument would rewrite the contract to include The Dunbar’s intended location as well as the resort itself. This we will not do. See Culhane v. W. Nat’l Mut. Ins. Co., 2005 S.D. 97, ¶ 27, 704 N.W.2d 287, 297 (“[W]e may neither rewrite the parties’ contract nor add to its language . . . .”). As a matter of law, the court did not err in its conclusion that Tatanka was elsewhere from The Dunbar. This conclusion is supported by giving the terms in the parties’ contract their plain and ordinary meaning.

Detmers v. Costner (S.D. S. Ct. May 9, 2012).

[Meredith R. Miller]

Elizabeth Travis Sues Ex-Husband Randy Travis for Breach of Management Contract

We were hoping to bring you a copy of the complaint from the EOnline site, but the link seems to be broken (we are keeping it here in case it comes back up).  In any case, the EOnline provides the basics here.  Apparently Elizabeth Travis served as manager for her husband, Randy Travis (pictured)  for nearly 30 years, including throughout their 19-year marriage.  After their divorce, the parties allegedly agreed that she was to continue to serve as his manager but Elizabeth Travis now claims that the singer breached that agreement.  According to the complaint (as summarized on EOnline):

"[Randy] had a large truck, an armed guard and several other men" turn up at her Music Row office and remove "practically all of the property and business records" from her custody, including computers, photographs and framed record plaques.

It's not clear from these reports (and that's why we'd love to see the complaint) if her claim is that this conduct constituted a constructive termination of the management agreement or if there was some separate termination letter.  If the former, than one is put in mind of Schwarzenegger's rather poorly delivered "Consider that a divorce." 

 

According to HuffPo, Mr. Travis is unimpressed: "It is unfortunate that it's come to this," Travis said. "We believe the lawsuit lacks merit and that we have legal defenses to her claims."

[JT]

Query: Why Is a Unilateral Contract to Seriously Injure Someone Not a Crime?

Sorry, this story is a bit stale, but we've been occupied with the semester.  Last month, the New York Times reported that the head coach for the New Orleans Saints, Sean Payton (pictured) would be suspended without pay for one year "for his role in a bounty program that promised money to players if they injured opponents and knocked them out of games."

Upon learning this news, the Saints' quarterback, Drew Brees tweeted as follows:  “I am speechless. Sean Payton is a great man, coach, and mentor. The best there is. I need to hear an explanation for this punishment.”

Well, we are not likely the source that Drew Brees looks to for explanations of such things, but is it not obvious that we are talking about serious crime here and is it not equally obvious that, if the bounty program is as described above, the appropriate penalty is not a one-year suspension for Coach Payton but a criminal investigation that could lead to significant jail time and a lifetime ban from the sport for Payton and all other members of the staff or the team who conspired to commit these crimes?  We are talking about offering players money for attempting to intentionally injure other players.  How is that not simply felonious conduct?  And it's not as if the perpetrators in this case can claim, as Michael Vick more plausibly could do, that their criminal conduct is the product of some sub-culture in which outrageous, inhumane behavior is considered normal.  Payton and his staff are NFL insiders who rub shoulders with the very people who are disciplining them for their conduct.  

If the suspension is upheld, Payton will be deprived of $7 million in salary.  Perhaps the Saints can contribute that money to a fund for NFL players and their families who are suffering from the long-term effects of the brain injuries they suffered while playing.

[JT]