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.
Well, let me just tell you that, furthermore, the motion states, the contract stated that any theatrical obligations would be met with showings on "no less than 1,500 screens." The motion stated the film in fact debuted on more than 9,600 scenes in the US and 30,000-plus screens worldwide. Additionally, Disney's lawyers also took issue with Johansson's claim that she'd lost earnings under the hybrid release model -- though it's still unclear what specifically was promised.
Contract law is never that simple. The big mistake people make when thinking about this stuff is thinking that the signed piece of paper is the contract. Its not , the contract is the agreement, and the piece of paper is just evidence of the agreement. This has implications, with the big one being that any verbal agreements to modify the terms in some way are just as valid as whats written. The catch is proving it. If Scarlet Johansen has an email, or some other evidence that they made additional promises, then those promises are ALSO in the contract.
I had a client once who tried to stiff me out out of an additional payment he had agreed by claiming it wasn't in the contract. I took him to small-claims court (australia) and submitted the email where he said that yes he had agreed, but it wasnt in the contract.
The judge took one look att the email and basically said "Kind of looks like your saying in this email that you DID agree" and ruled in my favor. Thats apparently an error made a LOT by people trying to stiff others out of payments , and in general the judiciary are NEVER impressed by that sort of ratfuckery.
I always go a step further and respond with something like "I am confirming that you want ### which is outside the scope of the contract/agreement and will result in additional charges of at least $$$. If you have any concerns about this, please reply so we can talk about it." I'll usually call and confirm they got the email and are agreeing to the work - if they don't reply in a timely manner, I'll follow up with something like "I haven't heard from you in writing regarding ### which will cost at least $$$ even though we spoke over the phone and you confirmed that you agreed to the additional costs. I am going to invoice you for the work as we agreed in our phone call."
Probably not perfect as people don't understand that email is treated like a written document in court but at least it will be fun to watch the other side's lawyers slap their foreheads in frustration.
In fact even a conversation is still a "contract" if you can get a witness (if you don't it can pretty quickly degenerate into a he-said/she-said mess that the judge and your expensive lawyer will need to spend very expensive time unpicking). Thats why you should always bring someone with you to meetings with the client, even if is just for casual beers , since you'll never know what might end up being agreed to [but remember, they can subpoena your witness too]
Contract law is never that simple. The big mistake people make when thinking about this stuff is thinking that the signed piece of paper is the contract
Exactly. If I talk to my neighbor and say, "you mow my lawn I'll bake you a pie". It is a contract and it is binding, even though nothing is in writing. Good luck arguing your case in court, but it is a contract.
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; fo
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
Said like someone who has never had to deal with contract law. Something doesn't have to be explicitly written down or even said to be considered part of a contract; to give an example a company that buys building materials buys some bricks, the supplier then refuses to deliver it as it "wasn't in the contract", the supplier would 100% lose the case if inclusive delivery was the norm in the industry and 10 previous orders placed in the same way had been delivered in that manner.
If someone wrote or even s
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:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:What's in the contract? (Score:5, Informative)
Contract law is never that simple. The big mistake people make when thinking about this stuff is thinking that the signed piece of paper is the contract. Its not , the contract is the agreement, and the piece of paper is just evidence of the agreement. This has implications, with the big one being that any verbal agreements to modify the terms in some way are just as valid as whats written. The catch is proving it. If Scarlet Johansen has an email, or some other evidence that they made additional promises, then those promises are ALSO in the contract.
I had a client once who tried to stiff me out out of an additional payment he had agreed by claiming it wasn't in the contract. I took him to small-claims court (australia) and submitted the email where he said that yes he had agreed, but it wasnt in the contract.
The judge took one look att the email and basically said "Kind of looks like your saying in this email that you DID agree" and ruled in my favor. Thats apparently an error made a LOT by people trying to stiff others out of payments , and in general the judiciary are NEVER impressed by that sort of ratfuckery.
Re:What's in the contract? (Score:4, Insightful)
I always go a step further and respond with something like "I am confirming that you want ### which is outside the scope of the contract/agreement and will result in additional charges of at least $$$. If you have any concerns about this, please reply so we can talk about it." I'll usually call and confirm they got the email and are agreeing to the work - if they don't reply in a timely manner, I'll follow up with something like "I haven't heard from you in writing regarding ### which will cost at least $$$ even though we spoke over the phone and you confirmed that you agreed to the additional costs. I am going to invoice you for the work as we agreed in our phone call."
Probably not perfect as people don't understand that email is treated like a written document in court but at least it will be fun to watch the other side's lawyers slap their foreheads in frustration.
Re: (Score:2)
In fact even a conversation is still a "contract" if you can get a witness (if you don't it can pretty quickly degenerate into a he-said/she-said mess that the judge and your expensive lawyer will need to spend very expensive time unpicking). Thats why you should always bring someone with you to meetings with the client, even if is just for casual beers , since you'll never know what might end up being agreed to [but remember, they can subpoena your witness too]
Re: (Score:3)
Contract law is never that simple. The big mistake people make when thinking about this stuff is thinking that the signed piece of paper is the contract
Exactly. If I talk to my neighbor and say, "you mow my lawn I'll bake you a pie". It is a contract and it is binding, even though nothing is in writing. Good luck arguing your case in court, but it is a contract.
Re: (Score:2)
Well if he agrees it is (Thats the part thats generally difficult to prove), yeah.
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: (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; fo
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
Re: (Score:2)
If someone wrote or even s