Unless your evidence is the contract stating you were owed an exclusive theatrical release, then you have nothing. The fact the lawyer used the word "promises" likely means it wasn't in there.
Everything I've heard/seen about this indicates they got an email from Marvel or Disney promising a normal theatrical release.
She needs to fire her lawyers/agents for taking an email as an acceptable agreement, and for not having streaming services addressed in her contract in the very first place.
You've just linked to the Wikipedia page so read it, or look it up on one of the many legal sites that cover case law and conventions.
The Wikipedia article itself gives some useful examples that might help you understand why estoppel exists as a concept, without its existence automatically meaning that any promises aren't contractual just because a mechanism exists that can be used to stop someone from going back on their word. Common law, and contract law within the common law system, is complicated; for example; If I tell you that the house has sound foundations and you have no way of checking before purchasing you could probably sue me for it, but if I said it had double glazing which you could check easily you wouldn't be able to sue me because case law says the responsibility is on you to be diligent.
tldr; estoppel most commonly implies where there have been relatively informal conversations, where either party would not typically be forced to honour it as a contract, but because one party has taken action and would now be disadvantaged if the agreement wasn't honoured the other party could be forced to honour it by a court. The radio seller example in the Wikipedia article is worth checking.
While I'm not into the details of US and California law, the general term "buyer beware", always apply. Even if you have an iron clad contract, there will ALWAYS be someone, somewhere, sometime trying to stiff You, and You have to take that into account in all that You say and do.
In this case, regardless if she had the promise in writing, even in the signed agreement, that probably wouldn't stop Disney from trying to cheat her out of this payment. Simply because it's more important for them to attract subsc
The steady state of disks is full.
-- Ken Thompson
What's in the contract? (Score:1)
Unless your evidence is the contract stating you were owed an exclusive theatrical release, then you have nothing. The fact the lawyer used the word "promises" likely means it wasn't in there.
Re: (Score:2)
Everything I've heard/seen about this indicates they got an email from Marvel or Disney promising a normal theatrical release.
She needs to fire her lawyers/agents for taking an email as an acceptable agreement, and for not having streaming services addressed in her contract in the very first place.
Re: (Score:2)
An email is a written communication documenting their promise.
You're an idiot, you're not even an armchair lawyer. Just an idiot.
That email is a contract.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:What's in the contract? (Score:2)
The Wikipedia article itself gives some useful examples that might help you understand why estoppel exists as a concept, without its existence automatically meaning that any promises aren't contractual just because a mechanism exists that can be used to stop someone from going back on their word. Common law, and contract law within the common law system, is complicated; for example; If I tell you that the house has sound foundations and you have no way of checking before purchasing you could probably sue me for it, but if I said it had double glazing which you could check easily you wouldn't be able to sue me because case law says the responsibility is on you to be diligent.
tldr; estoppel most commonly implies where there have been relatively informal conversations, where either party would not typically be forced to honour it as a contract, but because one party has taken action and would now be disadvantaged if the agreement wasn't honoured the other party could be forced to honour it by a court. The radio seller example in the Wikipedia article is worth checking.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
While I'm not into the details of US and California law, the general term "buyer beware", always apply. Even if you have an iron clad contract, there will ALWAYS be someone, somewhere, sometime trying to stiff You, and You have to take that into account in all that You say and do.
In this case, regardless if she had the promise in writing, even in the signed agreement, that probably wouldn't stop Disney from trying to cheat her out of this payment. Simply because it's more important for them to attract subsc