Monday, October 28, 2013
As reported here by Reuters, 27-time Grammy-winning producer Quincy Jones (pictured) is suing the estate of Micahel Jackson and Sony Music Entertainment (Sony) for $20 million for breach of two contracts relating to music that Mr. Jones produced on some of Michael Jackson's most successful albums. Mr. Jones alleges that the music was re-mixed for used in a Michael Jackson concert movie, "This Is It," and in to Cirque du Soleil shows that use Mr. Jackson's music. Mr. Jones claims that he is being denied proceeds in violation of his agreements with Sony and Mr. Jackson based on secret agreements between Sony and the administrators of Mr. Jackson's estate.
Wednesday, October 23, 2013
Gaynor has filed suit in state Superior Court in Somerville against a Piscataway contractor who replaced a second-floor concrete deck at her home that she says later caused leaks into the house and has to be replaced at a cost of $120,000.
According to the lawsuit filed earlier this month, Gaynor contracted with Diaz Landscape Design and Tree Service of Piscataway in November 2007 to remove an existing second-floor concrete deck and replace it with a new deck at a cost of $38,060.
After the new deck was installed, the lawsuit alleges, water began to leak into Gaynor’s home because of “faulty construction.”
There was also water ponding on the deck, water damage to wood sills and supports and the formation of mold, according to the suit.
Gaynor told the contractor about the problems and asked that the conditions be corrected. The contractor attempted to fix the problems, but the attempts failed and the problems persisted, causing more damage to the property, according to the lawsuit.
Gaynor then had another contractor examine the work performed by Diaz.
The new contractor determined that the work done by Diaz was “so faulty and defective” that the only appropriate remedy is removing the deck and constructing a new one at a cost of $120,000, the suit says.
Besides breach of contract and breach of warranty, Gaynor’s suit also charges Diaz with consumer fraud by not being registered in New Jersey as a home improvement contract and failing to obtain the required building permits, resulting in the work not being inspected.
Is Gaynor entitled to the cost of replacement of the deck? Time for a music break:
[Meredith R. Miller]
Tuesday, October 22, 2013
Meredith Miller's post from yesterday touched on a topic that most law professors have considered at some point or other. For years, there has been a movement to replace student-edited law reviews with a more professional model. Judge Posner threw his support behind an operation called PRSM -- the Peer Reviewed Scholarship Marketplace. But the idea has not caught on (judging by the stagnating PRSM membership). In my view, it is a fine thing to have different models out there, so it is fine with me that some student-edited journals are experimenting with peer review (and I hear anecdotally that many student-edited journals have been doing so informally all along). But my main point here is to stress how we all benefit from student-edited journals, and law professors should stop griping and realize how lucky they are to have the current arrangement.
I have written on this subject before here, emphasizing the benefits students derive from their work on law journals. Here is the heart of my argument from that previous post:
Some of the best training that happens at law schools happens at law reviews. I came to law school with ten years of scholarly experience under my belt, because I had written a doctoral dissertation, published historical scholarship and taught before making the jump to law school. Still, my skills as a researcher skyrocketed in my third year as a law student when I was responsible for overseeing a team of cite and substance editors on a number of review essays that we published in our Review of Law and Social Change. The evidentiary standards for legal scholarship are far more exacting than they are in the humanities and the non-quantitative social sciences. No claim can be made without authority. As a result, I became a far more intrepid researcher, and I unlearned intellectual habits acceptable to my former field of study and adopted intellectual habits essential to successful lawyering.
In this post, I would like to address some of the advantages of student-edited journals from the author's perspective. The main advantages of student-edited journals is that they are plentiful and rely on free labor. Since as I explained above, the labor is a valuable component of legal education, I don't feel too badly for the students who are not paid for their editorial work. But their efforts are responsible for raising the level of legal scholarship well above that of other humanities and social sciences.
Having more journals to publish in is good. Allow these adorable kids to explain:
You see, it's not complicated.
When I was a historian, I submitted articles for peer review. I waited 3-6 months for readers' reports. Sometimes the readers' reports were positive, and my article got published without further editing beyond typesetting. Other times I was told to revise and re-submit. In general, I would say that the suggested revisions were recommendations that I recast my own research to satisfy the reviewer, and I was not always convinced that doing so would enhance the quality of the piece. But I would do my best to revise, and there were times when my attempts to satisfy the reviewer were unsuccessful. I could move on to the next journal, but I don't think I ever did. I published in a specialized field, and there were usually only a couple of journals where it made sense for me to publish. The universe of qualified reviewers was also limited. Two of my historical writings, to which I devoted months of work were never published, and one of them should have been.
Without a doubt, legal scholars benefit from being able to submit simultaneously to scores of publications. If none of those publications bite, we wait six months for the next round and try our luck with a fresh crop of editors who may not have the benefit of a meaningful institutional memory. At some point, worthwhile scholarship finds its way into print, and as long as the publication is included on a database, and most journals are, students, attorneys, and scholars can find it regardless of the prestige of the publication.
Okay, so what is the downside?
One potential downside is that a lot of useless nonesense gets published. I would be very interested to see evidence that peer review prevents the publication of useless nonesense. People bandy about the statistic that 40% of law review articles are never cited. Okay, is a higher percentage of peer reviewed material cited? In any case, as I wrote in another post:
As for scholarship itself, Brian Leiter was here a few weeks ago to deliver our annual Seegers Lecture on Jurisprudence. In response to a question about the value of scholarship, he said something very close to my view. Most of what gets published is a dead end. But a certain percentage of it is very valuable, and there is no way of telling ex ante which scholarship is going to move the ball in a meaningful way. That's why we need lots of people doing their best to move the ball and why we need to continue to support faculty scholarship.
The other downside is that students are incompetent as editors not only in selection but also in the way they deal with the text. This, I say, is nonsense. Peer review may be more rigorous but peer editing clearly is not. Whenever I have submitted essays for peer review, the final product is almost identical to the original, except for formatting and the repair of the odd typo. Student editors work hard to improve the quality and clarity of the writing, and they also find authority where it is lacking. They make us seem much more lucid, knowledgeable and careful than we really are -- or than we are when we first submit our offerings up for publication.
The last time I published in a peer-review, peer-edited journal, my piece was: 1) accepted, 2) rejected following a coup on the editorial board, and 3) re-accepted after the coup unraveled. The re-acceptance was conditional on revisions. The readers' reports came to me nearly two years after the original submission, but I received many vague missives from the journal suggesting that I had very little time to make the necessary changes or the journal would pass on publication. I made the requisite changes (which were idiotic and necessitated a new research project) and re-submitted. For months, I heard nothing. My inquiries recieved no response until I received the page proofs. The page proofs corresponded to my original draft. That's right, the "professional editors" who insisted that I revise my article were then prepared to publish my article without the revisions. Publication followed some months later, about two years after the article was first accepted for publication. I know we all have horror stories about student editors, but could they really have done much worse than that?
I have been storing these thoughts up for a while, hoping that I would one day have the time to publish them in a student-edited law journal. For now, a blog post will have to do.
Monday, October 21, 2013
In case you didn't see it, Adam Liptak's Sidebar column in the New York Times takes aim at student-edited law reviews with such zingers as: "Law reviews are such a target-rich environment for ridicule that it is barely sporting to make fun of them." Liptak gets it mostly right in describing the dismal status quo, incluing the utter lack of relevance of most law review articles to the practicing bar. (I had a law professor who said the best way to keep a secret is in a law review article and I tend to think he was right).
I am shocked that this story is newsworthy and I don't necessarily agree with the prescription that "blind screening, peer review and more training for the student editors" would make all the difference. But I am most grateful that Liptak's column references a 1936 essay by Yale Professor Fred Rodell titled “Goodbye to Law Reviews.” It made my day. Check out the abstract:
It is doubtless of no concern to anyone that this is probably my last law review article. As a matter of fact, this makes one more article than I had originally planned to write. It was something in the nature of a New Year's resolution. Yet the request to do a piece about law reviews seemed a golden opportunity to make my future absence from the "Leading Articles, Authors" lists a bit more pointed than would the business of merely sitting in a comer, sucking my thumb, and muttering Boo. Keeping well in line with two traditions—a course which lawyers will readily understand—I decided to break the resolution and not wait for opportunity's second knock. This, then, is by way of explaining why I do not care to contribute further to the qualitatively moribund while quantitatively mushroom-like literature of the law.
There are two things wrong with almost all legal writing. One is its style. The other is its content. That, I think, about covers the ground. And though it is in the law reviews that the most highly regarded legal literature—and I by no means except those fancy rationalizations of legal action called judicial opinions—is regularly embalmed, it is in the law reviews that a pennyworth of content is most frequently concealed beneath a pound of so-called style. The average law review writer is peculiarly able to say nothing with an air of great importance. When I Used to read law reviews, I used constantly to be reminded of an elephant trying to swat a fly.
Just proves that there is nothing new to say.
[Meredith R. Miller]
Saturday's New York Times featured a story about a family that was nearly ruined by medical bills resulting from their infant daughter's emergency heart surgery. Although the hospital was in network, not all of the doctors who treated the infant were, and so the insurer passed on "balance payments" to the family for the difference between what out-of-network medical personnel charged and what insurance covered for such out-of-network medical personnel.
According to the story, the family was never informed that some of the people treating the child were out-of-network. Then they were billed thousands of dollars. Fortunately, the child's grandmother had the resources to fight the insurers every inch of the way and the story has a relatively happy ending. They were able to appeal some of the out-of-network charges, and then their insurance company agreed to kick in a bit more of a contribution and the out-of-network provider wrote off the rest. The family only ended up paying around $10,000.
That result is likely the result of a compromise that relied on the facts of the particular case, but it also seems like the right result under a theory of restitution. The family did not agree to have an out-of-network provider provide medical services for their daughter. When such services were provided, they were provided officiously to the extent that the medical provider sought compensation beyond what the family was willing to pay. They should not be required to pay in excess of that amount when nobody ever asked them if they would accept services out of network.
However, the facts of this case are relatively easy. The answer to the question of whether a family would accept out-of-network medical services necessary to save their infant daughter is almost certainly yes. But what follows from that. One could argue that whether or not there is actual consent to treatment by out-of-network providers in an emergency situation, recovery should be limited to in-network charges. Consent is not meaningful when given under conditions of such emotional duress. Or one could argue that, because a family would always consent if asked, the officious intermeddler argument above is specious. Families that want better coverage will have to pay for better insurance.
According to the Times, it is not clear that the Afffordable Care Act (ACA) addresses this problem. One expert says it doesn't and that the ACA could exacerbate the problem because networks may be smaller on many ACA plans. On the other hand, the Times reports that under the ACA, annual out-of-pocket expenses should not exceed $6,350 for individuals and $12,700 for a family of two or more in 2014.
The distinction between in-network and out-of-network is likely a historical accident in the United States. I would guess that it is unknown in many of the 45 countries whose health care systems are regarded as more efficient than that of the United States. Twenty-three of these countries have higher life expectancies than the U.S. Overall, in a 2000 study, the World Health Organization ranked the United States 38th overall in the quality of its healthcare system, despite the fact that the U.S. in #1 in per capita expenditures on health care.
Monday, October 7, 2013
After one year of negotiations and one cancelled Gala, Carnegie Hall and its stagehands' union were able to come to an agreement last Friday, October 4th. According to The New York Times, both sides have declared victory. The union will play a role in Carnegie Hall's new $230 million educational facility, but it will not be the same role that it plays in the Hall itself.
Under the new deal, people can move things without calling in union help unless they are heavy. When asked how heavy something has to be before a stagehand must be called, Carnegie Hall's executive director explained “Heavy enough that a person says, ‘I need some help from the union person.’" Now that's a clear standard.
Thursday, October 3, 2013
We don't get to use our Labor Contracts category very often on this blog, so a story in today's New York Times was welcome news, even if it isn't very happy news. According to the Times, stage hands at Carnegie Hall (right) have gone on strike to protest a decision by Carnegie Hall that the stagehands union will not participate in a new educational wing to be 0pened next year.
The strike seems to have caught Carnegie Hall off-guard, as it forced the cancellation of this year's opening gala event, which was the feature the Philadelphia Orchestra, Joshua Bell and other liminaries of the classical music world. The Philadelphia Orchestra, by the way, decided to play for free at its usual home, the Verizon Center, which despite its crass, corporate name, is an absolutely spectacular concert venue. Last year's opening gala raised $2.7 million for the Hall.
The problem, of course, is that the stagehands are expensive. The Times claims that their average compensation comes out to $400,000 a year, but that can't be right -- nobody can live in New York City on only $400,000 a year. In any case, Carnegie Hall claims that it can rely on far cheaper union workers in its educational wing, because, e.g., moving pianos around for educational purposes is completely different from moving pianos around for theatrical purposes.
Carnegie employs only five full-time stagehands, but each of them earned more last year than the Hall's finance director. This same union shut down Broadway for over two weeks in 2007. Nobody is predicting how long it will be before one hears nothing in Carnegie Hall louder than a pin drop.
Thursday, September 26, 2013
NFL v. MIA: we've mentioned issues related to this incident on this blog in the past. But, if you ask me, it just got good.
Here's the background: at the 2012 Superbowl, this little flip of the bird happened during the halftime show:
The NFL has since sued (in arbitration) M.I.A. (the bird-flipping artist in the video above) for $1.5 million. The NFL’s claim? It claims that M.I.A. breached her contract because the “offensive gesture” was “in flagrant disregard for the values that form the cornerstone of the NFL brand and the Super Bowl." In the contract, she apparently acknowledged “the great value of the goodwill associated with the NFL and the tremendous public respect and reputation for wholesomeness enjoyed by the NFL."
The case, it sounds, comes down to what is “offensive” and what exactly are the “wholesome” values of the NFL. This FoxSports column does a great job explaining why the lawsuit is “laughable” – with video footage as evidence of just how wholesome the NFL is.
A video of M.I.A. has recently surfaced. In the video, she (rather articulately) explains the absurdity of the lawsuit. As 411Mania.com describes:
[M.I.A.] says the NFL is "scapegoating me into trying to set the goalpost for what is offensive in America." She notes that the picture in which she is seen giving the middle finger also has a group of sixteen year-old girls who were selected from a high school in Indianapolis who are in cheerleader outfits with their "hips thrusted in the air, legs wide open, in this very sexual...sexually provocative position."
Here’s M.I.A. regarding the lawsuit, which she describes as "a massive display of... powerful corporation dick shaking." In light of the 16-year-old cheerleaders on stage behind her, she frames the issue in the lawsuit as whether female sexual exploitation or empowerment is more offensive. Interesting stuff:
[Meredith R. Miller]
Breaking Bad, I just thought I would never again have anything to which I could look foward. I did just turn 50, so there is AARP membership and a colonoscopy, but I thought there would be nothing in my future that I would anticipate enjoying.
But then came this in today's New York Times. Vince Gilligan, the creator of Breaking Bad just sigend an agreement for a new show on CBS. The timing of the announcement speaks well of both Mr. Gilligan and CBS, capitalizing on the current fan feeding frenzy surrounding the end of the series. But the fact that CBS is belatedly pouncing on a Gilligan script originally offered to CBS ten years ago speaks less well of that party to the deal.
Mr. Gilligan has an exclusive deal with Sony Pictures Television, which negotiated for him an unsual deal in which CBS agreed up front to air 13 episodes of Mr. Gilligan's series, Battle Creek. There's a lot of money involved, but who cares? If Battle Creek is anything like Breaking Bad, I will forgive CBS for not airing a single show that I have wanted to watch in the last 25 years.
Or am I forgetting something? Has CBS had any good comedies or dramas in prime time?
Friday, September 20, 2013
"By now, you’ve heard the stories of passengers urinating in bags, slipping on sewage, and eating stale cereal aboard the Carnival Cruise ship that was stranded in the Gulf of Mexico — not exactly the fun-filled cruise for which the passengers had signed up and paid." My post on "Carnival Cruise and the Contracting of Everything" is available here.
Friday, September 13, 2013
Last week, Facebook announced that it planned to enact changes to its privacy policies. Its announcement elicited the by now, all too-familiar flurry of protests from users and privacy advocacy groups. Six privacy groups wrote to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) that the proposed changes violated the 2011 settlement that Facebook reached with the FTC over its Sponsored Stories advertising program.
The letter states that the proposed changes “will allow Facebook to routinely use the images and names of Facebook users for commercial advertising without consent.” While the current policy permits users to “use your privacy settings to limit how your name and profile picture may be associated with commercial, sponsored, or related content ,” the proposed policy brazenly states:
“(y)ou give us permission to use your name, profile, picture, content and information in connection with commercial, sponsored or related content…This means, for example, that you permit a business or other entity to pay us to display your name and/or profile picture with your content or information, without any compensation to you.”
As the letter points out, the images of Facebook’s users “could even be used by Facebook to endorse products that the user does not like or even use.”
Facebook’s proposed policy changes also contain this provision:
“If you are under the age of eighteen (18), or under any other applicable age of majority, you represent that at least one of your parents or legal guardians has also agreed to the terms of this section (and the use of your name, profile picture, content, and information) on your behalf.”
This week, the Federal Trade Commission announced that it would investigate whether Facebook's announced policy would violate a 2011 agreement that the company had reached with the agency. Facebook's position is that the proposed changes were prompted by its settlement in a case involving its Sponsored Stories advertising program.
Facebook’s proposed changes seemed eerily familiar and then I realized why –I’d already written about this issue back in December. Back in December, Instagram, a company acquired by Facebook, proposed changes to its terms of service that stated:
“you agree that a business or other entity may pay us to display your username, likeness, photos (along with any associated metadata), and/or actions you taken, in connection with paid or sponsored content or promotions, without any compensation to you. If you are under the age of eighteen (18), or under any other applicable age of majority, you represent that at least one of your parents or legal guardians has also agreed to this provision (and the use of your name, likeness, username, and/or photos (along with any associated metadata)) on your behalf.”
Do the terms sound familiar?
And now this, again. It's like the 1993 movie, Groundhog Day, starring Bill Murray and Andie MacDowell. In that film, Murray's character, a T.V. weatherman, is made to report on Groundhog Day activities. Murray's character, who doesn't like the assignment, finds that he keeps waking up to relive Feb. 2nd over and over again.
Facebook just doesn’t understand that no, means no. It pleads forgiveness, wants us back, and then the same behavior starts up all over again. We want to believe you. We really do.
We feel your pain, Huma Abedin.
There are long term consequences to what Facebook is doing. Each time it pushes, it pushes hard, and in
response to pushback from consumers, it appears to retreat – but not as far
back as it pushed. Then it does it again
and each time, Facebook manages to loosen our privacy norms just a bit more. It wins through increments, through
persistence. It didn’t get to a billion
users overnight and it isn’t going to strip us of all our privacy without a
good fight from us.
But big changes are made in increments. Policy changes that nobody reads because they are hidden in wrap contracts, slowly but surely, change our expectations of privacy. The erosion of consent, justifiable perhaps at one time to limit business risks, led us to where we are now –an online contract clause that purports to extract consent from someone who never even received notice of its existence. To make matters worse, the clause is directed at children who don’t even have legal capacity to contract.
Really, this time you’ve gone too far, Facebook. This time, let’s make it the last time, Facebook. Promise?
Of course you do.
Over the summer, hte UK's National Audit Office presented to the BBC Trust Finance Committee this Report on executive severance payments made to fromer BBC executives. The BBC has reduced its management staff signficantly since 2009. In so doing, it expects savings totalling £92 million. However, the BBC also has made severance payments to the 150 ousted executives totalling £25 million.
According to the Report, the BBC plans changes going forward. From now on severance pay will not exceed 12-months salary or £150,000, whichever is less.
The drama of Parliamentary hearings into the payments is well described here in the UK's The Guardian. The BBC's Director General at the time of the payments was Mark Thompson, who recently moved on to The New York Times, where he is Chief Executive. Thompson defended the payments before Parliament, although they exceeded by £1.4 million (£2 million in The Independent's account) the BBC's contractual obligations to its former executives. The largest single payment was just over £1 million, and it went to Thompson's deputy, Mark Byford. According to the BBC, the investigation into severance payments was triggered by a £450,000 payment to one BBC executive who resigned in connection with a scandal after just 54 days on the job.
From an American perspective, it is a bit hard to see what the fuss is all about. Sure, capping severance for executives at publicly-owned entities is certainly a reasonable policy, but even without the cap, exceeding contractual obligations by something less than 10% while achieving significant savings overall seems pretty tame on the overall scales of both wasteful public-sector spending and executive severance packages. As Brad Pitt's character puts it in Inglorious Bastards, that should just get you a chewing out. But perhaps we have been desensitized by the size of severance packets, even at public corporations, on this side of the pond.
1. It is perhaps telling that the Report begins with three blank pages (after the cover page) followed by two mostly blank pages. Apparently they don't audit their own use of paper.
2. UK usage seems to have completely abandoned the hyphenated compound adjective. Thus, after all the blank pages, the Report begins, "The BBC Trust receives value for money investigations into specific areas of BBC activity." I had to read this sentence three times before I could make any sense of it. That's because "value for money" is a compound adjective rather than two nouns separated by a preposition. To my eyes, the sentence would have been far more readable if it had been written: "The BBC Trust receives value-for-money investigations into specific areas of BBC activity. " Am I the only one? My inquiry also relates to changes going on in Law Review offices in the US, as I have tussled with student editors who have grown hostile to hyphens in recent years. I like the little fellas.
Thursday, September 12, 2013
In July, Centre College announced that the A. Eugene Brockman Charitable Trust had pledged the largest gift in the history of small, liberal arts colleges. The fund would be used to create 160 scholarships for students majoring in the natural sciences, computational sciences or dismal sciences (aka economics). Eugene Brockman died in 1986, but his son, Robert T. Brockman attended Centre College and is now a principal in Reynolds & Reynolds, a car dealership support company.
Earlier this week, Centre College announced that the gift had been withdrawn. The gift was contingent, as it turns out, on "a significant capital market event." The event was a $3.4 billion loan deal involving Reynolds & Reynolds. The proceeds from the deal would go to Reynolds & Reynolds shareholders, including the Brockman Trust. But the rating agencies did not like the deal and downgraded Reynolds & Reynolds. As a result, no deal, no proceeds, no revenues to the Brockman Trust and then none to the College.
For our purposes, there are two money quotes in the Times coverage from Centre College's President John Roush. First, “In retrospect, we might have put a big asterisk on this thing . . . ." And second “We had a lot of people who have poured mountains of time into this . . . ."
No doubt, Centre College would like to maintain its good relations with the Brockman Trust. It has received money from the Trust in the past; it would like to continue to do so in the future. But if there were a clean break, is the pledge enforceable?
The answer may turn on where that astserisk should be. Was there an asterisk attached to the gift or an asterisk attached to the announcement of the gift? If Brockman made clear that its gift was contingent on the significant capital market event, then its pledge is not binding. There was no promise. But if the condition was not clear, there may still be a representation that one would reasonably expect to induce reliance and that apparently induced actual reliance when the Centre College people "poured mountains of time" into the gift. Even the announcement of the gift, its purposes and its source, might be consideration, rendering the gift pledge enforceable (if there was indeed a promise), because the Trust got something of value (publicity) in exchange for its pledge.
One also wonders about other donors. If the Brockman Charitable Trust pledge was used to attract other donors, those donors might now be experiencing donor's remorse. If the other donors now renege on their pledges, might the College have a cause of action against the Trust?
The NYT reported that Victor Willis, who you may know as the policeman/naval officer from the Village People, will finally get control of copyright to certain songs that he wrote back in the day. Those songs include hits like "YMCA," "In the Navy" and "Go West." Yes, he also wrote "Macho Man," but unfortunately, he wrote tht one before the relevant law went into effect. That law was a provision in the 1978 Copyright Act that gave creators "termination rights" that permitted them to take back control of the copyright to their works after 35 years - even if they had originally signed away those rights. We've all heard the horror stories of our favorite musicians in their lean and/or naive years signing away rights in one-sided contracts that favor the labels. His is the first well-known case of an artist invoking those termination rights, which opens up a lot of possibilities for him. Mr. Willis is quoted in the NYT article as saying, "I've had lots of offers, from records and publishing companies" although he isn't sure what he'll do next. He does have these parting words of wisdom, "When you're young, you just want to get out there and aren't really paying attention to what's on paper. I never even read one contract they put in front of me, and that's a big mistake." It takes a real "macho man" to admit his mistakes.
Tuesday, September 10, 2013
According to Rolling Stone, Ohio resident Noam Lazebnik has sued Apple for breach of contract, claiming that "he and other Breaking Bad fans have been cheated by only receiving the first eight episodes of the show's final 16 episodes with their iTunes 'Season Pass.'" Rolling Stone explains:
The AMC drama's fifth season has aired in a split format of two eight-episode mini-runs. Lazebnik says he and other customers were promised "every episode in that season," which should include the final eight episodes (since those are technically still part of Season Five). According to the lawsuit, Apple owes fans either $14.99 (for the standard version) or $22.99 (for the high-def version).
Lazebnik is basing the suit on "breach of contract and violation of California's consumer protection laws."
"When a consumer buys a ticket to a football game, he does not have to leave at halftime," reads the claim. "When a consumer buys an opera ticket, he does not get kicked out at intermission." Apple representatives contacted by GigaOM did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
[Meredith R. Miller]
Wednesday, September 4, 2013
We are saddened by the death of Ronald Coase, whose work opened up a range of new prospectives on contractual (and other kinds of) relationships. That sadness is tempered by our knowledge that his life was well-lived and that he remained active and productive even as he surpassed the century mark. Remeberances abound and we have little to add, so we simply link below to what others have said:
Friday, August 30, 2013
BP is upset that bogus claims are being filed against it in connection with its settlement of claims relating to the Deepwater Horizon explosion (pictured) and oil spill. It has responded with a full-page ad in major newspapers (which you can view on Forbes's website). According to the ad, BP negotiated a settlement three years ago relating to claims arising out of the Deepwater Horizon incident. BP now claims that claims are being paid out to businesses that did not suffer damages relating to the incident.
Responses range from Forbes's allegations that BP is suffering "buyer's remorse" to Business Insider's suggestions that some parties (often identified as "plaintiffs' lawyers") are seeking to feed at the trough of a potentially large fund available to anyone with a colorable claim on it. The Wall Street Journal blog provides some insights here.
Tuesday, August 27, 2013
What at thrill to see a contracts story on the front page of the Saturday New York Times Arts Section above the fold! The occasion is a public exhibition by the Dvorak American Heritage Association, which will display the actual contract that brought Antonin Dvorak (pictured contemplating a move to America) to New York for three years beginning in 1892.
According to the Times, Jeanette Thurber, wealthy patron of the National Conservatory of Music of America, agreed to pay Dvorak $15,000 -- 25 times what he was getting in Prage -- in return for his agreement to keep regular hours (well, three hours a day), teaching six days a week at her school. She did give him summers off. He was also contractually obligated to give up to six concertns a year. It's not clear whether that means that he was himself to perform or if he was to conduct an orchestra or chamber music group composed of the Conservatory's students.
The Times reports that the panic of 1893 made it difficult for Mrs. Thurber to keep up with the payments she owed Dvorak. He may have gone back to Prague a few thousand dollars short.
Monday, August 26, 2013
Friday's New York Times included this story that might be of interest to Hurly v. Eddingfield fans. As readers of this blog should recall, Hurley is a case about a doctor who refused to see his deathly ill patient, giving no reason and despite a proffer of payment and having no excuse for his refusal. We have blogged about the case previously here and here. The point of the case is that the doctor is not contractually obligated to come to the aid of his patient, and the law will not impose on him an obligation to enter into such a contractual obligation unwillingly.
As many of my students find it a bad state of affairs if a doctor cannot be compelled to treat her patient, when she is the only doctor available and she has no reason for refusing to do so, I assure them that there are non-contractual mechanisms -- state or professional codes -- for that may address Hurley's facts. Friday's story in the Times illustrates how this can work.
Vanessa Willock (Willock) contacted Elane Photography, LLC (Elane), to determine whether Elane would be available to photograph her commitment ceremony/wedding to another woman. (New Mexico's Supreme Court explains that although Willock at first referred to the ceremony as a commitment ceremony, the parties also referred to the event as a wedding, and the court used the terms interchangeably.) Elane's lead photographer is opposed to same-sex marriage and will not photoraph events that violate her religious beliefs.
Represented by the Washington-based Alliance Defending Freedom, Willock sued, citing New Mexico's constitutional Human Rights Act, which was revised in 1972 to prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Elane claimed that forcing it to photograph Willock's commitment ceremony/wedding violated its First Amendment Rights. Eugene Volokh has blogged extensively on the case (e.g., here), and he filed an amicus brief in the case. Volokh characterized his position and that of his fellow amici as follows: "All the signers of the brief support same-sex marriage rights; our objection is not to same-sex marriages, but to compelling photographers and other speakers works that they don’t want to create."
New Mexico's Supreme Court (and all other courts that heard the case) ruled in favor of Willock. Willock sought only a declaratory judgment that Elane had violated New Mexico's Human Rights Act. Willock sought no other remedy. We leave the constitutional issues to Volokh and others with greater claims of expertise. We note, however, that the effect of the ruling is that New Mexico's constitutional interest in prohibiting discrimination trumps the common law contractual principle of freedom of contract. Unlike the doctor in Hurley, Elane's must contract with people with whom it does not want to contract, even though, also unlike doctor in Hurley, Elane's has grounds for its unwillingness to contract sounding in constitutional principles of freedom of speech and freedom of religion.
The Times provides the full text of the case, Elane Photograhpy, LLC v. Willock.
Tuesday, August 13, 2013
After an ugly three-car accident, plaintiffs sued the other drivers, one driver’s employer (Xerox) and a corporation that owned one of the cars (Gelco). Gelco moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. That same day, the parties held a mediation that did not resolve the lawsuit. Thereafter, Brenda Greene, the adjuster for Gelco’s insurer called plaintiffs’ counsel to revive settlement negotiations. After a few days of negotiating, plaintiffs’ counsel orally agreed to settle the case. Greene sent a confirmation email message to plaintiffs’ counsel, it read:
Per our phone conversation today, May 3, 2011, you accepted my offer of $230,000 to settle this case. Please have your client executed [sic] the attached Medicare form as no settlement check can be issued without this form.
You also agreed to prepare the release, please included [sic] the following names: Xerox Corporation, Gelco Corporation, Mitchell G. Maller and Sedgwick CMS. Please forward the release and dismissal for my review. Thanks Brenda Greene.
Plaintiffs signed a release on May 4. On May 10, plaintiffs’ counsel sent that release and a stipulation of discontinuance to Gelco. That same day, Gelco’s attorney received an email alert that the court granted Gelco’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Gelco’s counsel faxed and mailed a letter to plaintiffs’ counsel "rejecting" the release and stipulation. Gelco’s attorney stated: "there was no settlement consummated under New York CPLR 2104 between the parties, we considered this matter dismissed by the court's decision…dated May 10..."
The issue before the appellate court was whether the email message satisfied the criteria of CPLR 2104 so as to constitute a binding and enforceable stipulation of settlement. Where a settlement is not made in open court, CPLR 2104 provides: "An agreement between parties or their attorneys relating to any matter in an action…is not binding upon a party unless it is in a writing subscribed by him or his attorney."
The appellate court held that the email counted as a writing and a subscription by Gelco’s representative, binding the parties to the settlement. After holding that Greene had apparent authority to bind Gelco to the settlement, the court reasoned:
It is, of course, axiomatic that a letter can be considered "subscribed," since letters are usually signed at the end by the author thereof. However, email messages cannot be signed in the traditional sense. Nevertheless, this lack of "subscription" in the form of a handwritten signature has not prevented other courts from concluding that an email message, which is otherwise valid as a stipulation between parties, can be enforced pursuant to CPLR 2104. * * *
Morever, given the now widespread use of email as a form of written communication in both personal and business affairs, it would be unreasonable to conclude that email messages are incapable of conforming to the criteria of CPLR 2104 simply because they cannot be physically signed in a traditional fashion (see Newmark & Co. Real Estate Inc. v. 2615 E. 17th St. Realty LLC, 80 AD3d 476, 477-478 ["e-mail agreement set forth all relevant terms of the agreement…and thus, constituted a meeting of the minds"]). Indeed, such a conclusion is buttressed by reference to the New York State Technology Law, former article 1, "Electronic Signatures and Records Act," which was enacted by the Legislature in 2002. In the accompanying statement of legislative intent, the Legislature stated in part:
"[This act] is intended to support and encourage electronic commerce and electronic government by allowing people to use electronic signatures and electronic records in lieu of handwritten signatures and paper documents" (L 2002, ch 314, §1).
Section 302(3) of this statute states that an "'[e]lectronic signature' shall mean an electronic sound, symbol, or process, attached to or logically associated with an electronic record and executed or adopted by a person with the intent to sign the record." Section 304(2) of the statute states that "an electronic signature may be used by a person in lieu of a signature affixed by hand [and] [t]he use of an electronic signature shall have the same validity and effect as the use of a signature affixed by hand."
In the case at bar, Greene's email message contained her printed name at the end thereof, as opposed to an "electronic signature" as defined by the Electronic Signatures and Records Act. Nevertheless, the record supports the conclusion that Greene, in effect, signed the email message. In particular, we note that the subject email message ended with the simple expression, "Thanks Brenda Greene," which appears at the end of the email text. This indicates that the author purposefully added her name to this particular email message, rather than a situation where the sender's email software has been programmed to automatically generate the name of the email sender, along with other identifying information, every time an email message is sent (cf. DeVita v. Macy's E., Inc., 36 AD3d 751). In addition, the circumstances which preceded Greene's email message, and in particular, the face-to-face mediation at which settlement was attempted and the subsequent follow-up telephone calls between Greene and the plaintiff's counsel, support the conclusion that Greene intended to "subscribe" the email settlement for purposes of CPLR 2104 (see Newmark & Co. Real Estate Inc. v. 2615 E. 17th St. Realty LLC, 80 AD3d at 477 ["e-mail sent by a party, under which the sending party's name is typed, can constitute a writing for purposes of the statute of frauds"]; see also Naldi v. Grunberg, 80 AD3d 1, 6-13).
Accordingly, we hold that where, as here, an email message contains all material terms of a settlement and a manifestation of mutual accord, and the party to be charged, or his or her agent, types his or her name under circumstances manifesting an intent that the name be treated as a signature, such an email message may be deemed a subscribed writing within the meaning of CPLR 2104 so as to constitute an enforceable agreement.
Forcelli v. Gelco Corp., 27584/08, NYLJ 1202612381868, at *1 (App. Div., 2d, Decided July 24, 2013)
[Meredith R. Miller]