As you can see, there is NO written contract... phone calls and emails... but no written contract. Mind you, you could argue that there was a verbal contract/agreement, but we all know how hard those are to prove in court. Too much room for interpretation.
...I think Brenda should get a apology from all those who came down on her because she said there was no contract.
Apparently, when an email is sent that says "CONTRACT", what is in it is legal and binding. What's your email addy again, Ray?
As you can see, there is NO written contract... phone calls and emails... but no written contract. Mind you, you could argue that there was a verbal contract/agreement, but we all know how hard those are to prove in court. Too much room for interpretation.
...I think Brenda should get a apology from all those who came down on her because she said there was no contract.
Really?
Perhaps we're reading a different file.
Specifically
"On February 16, 2011, defendant MILLER, President of defendant SEITER & MILLER sent Hurwitz and email headed "Ben Stein Contract"
The email said that Kyocera has decided to "withdrawal its offer" to BEN STEIN (despite the fact that there had already been offer and acceptance and change of position. i.e. a contract, not simply an offer)
I can send you an email with a contract too, if you want? I take it just sending that email with attachment makes it a done deal, without any of us signing.
As you can see, there is NO written contract... phone calls and emails... but no written contract. Mind you, you could argue that there was a verbal contract/agreement, but we all know how hard those are to prove in court. Too much room for interpretation.
...I think Brenda should get a apology from all those who came down on her because she said there was no contract.
Apparently, when an email is sent that says "CONTRACT", what is in it is legal and binding. What's your email addy again, Ray?
We'll see Wednesday/Thursday what's going on.
The lawyer indicated numerous times in that document that there was a contract in place.
To clarify, you're saying the lawyer for Stein is lying?
As you can see, there is NO written contract... phone calls and emails... but no written contract. Mind you, you could argue that there was a verbal contract/agreement, but we all know how hard those are to prove in court. Too much room for interpretation.
...I think Brenda should get a apology from all those who came down on her because she said there was no contract.
Apparently, when an email is sent that says "CONTRACT", what is in it is legal and binding. What's your email addy again, Ray?
We'll see Wednesday/Thursday what's going on.
The lawyer indicated numerous times in that document that there was a contract in place.
To clarify, you're saying the lawyer for Stein is lying?
I'm saying that we will see what the LA court thinks is a legal contract and if there is a breach of it in this case.
The funny thing in this case is the "emotional distress" they are looking to have compensated. That sounds like "grasping for straws" when you are suing for "breach of contract" and only seeking the full amount that was offered to be paid to you for work done. Why would you add that when you have a rock solid "breach of contract" case?
OnTheIce
CKA Elite
Posts: 4525
Posted: Mon Jan 16, 2012 9:18 am
Brenda wrote:
I'm saying that we will see what the LA court thinks is a legal contract and if there is a breach of it in this case.
The funny thing in this case is the "emotional distress" they are looking to have compensated. That sounds like "grasping for straws" when you are suing for "breach of contract" and only seeking the full amount that was offered to be paid to you for work done. Why would you add that when you have a rock solid "breach of contract" case?
Imagine being hired for a job Brenda, only to be turned away last minute because of your views and they replaced you with someone that looks like you and acts exactly like you.
It would piss you off!
I don't think it's fair to assume the lawyer for Stein is lying.
Brenda
CKA Uber
Posts: 44547
Posted: Mon Jan 16, 2012 9:26 am
OnTheIce wrote:
Brenda wrote:
I'm saying that we will see what the LA court thinks is a legal contract and if there is a breach of it in this case.
The funny thing in this case is the "emotional distress" they are looking to have compensated. That sounds like "grasping for straws" when you are suing for "breach of contract" and only seeking the full amount that was offered to be paid to you for work done. Why would you add that when you have a rock solid "breach of contract" case?
Imagine being hired for a job Brenda, only to be turned away last minute because of your views and they replaced you with someone that looks like you and acts exactly like you.
It would piss you off!
I don't think it's fair to assume the lawyer for Stein is lying.
been there, done it. Being pissed does not mean being right.
I don't think it is fair to assume Kyocera is lying.
I don't know, but there are many lawsuits filed that turn out to be hardly true and are overturned. I think Mr. Stein is hoping for Kyocera to settle because they somehow should not want the attention.
OnTheIce
CKA Elite
Posts: 4525
Posted: Mon Jan 16, 2012 9:54 am
Brenda wrote:
been there, done it. Being pissed does not mean being right.
I don't think it is fair to assume Kyocera is lying.
I don't know, but there are many lawsuits filed that turn out to be hardly true and are overturned. I think Mr. Stein is hoping for Kyocera to settle because they somehow should not want the attention.
Kyocera hasn't said anything regarding the case, so how do we know if they're lying?
Brenda
CKA Uber
Posts: 44547
Posted: Mon Jan 16, 2012 9:59 am
OnTheIce wrote:
Brenda wrote:
been there, done it. Being pissed does not mean being right.
I don't think it is fair to assume Kyocera is lying.
I don't know, but there are many lawsuits filed that turn out to be hardly true and are overturned. I think Mr. Stein is hoping for Kyocera to settle because they somehow should not want the attention.
Kyocera hasn't said anything regarding the case, so how do we know if they're lying?
Kyocera has not kept their part of the "contract" (according to you and Stein), which is what the suit is all about. By not paying the man or letting the man do the job he was obviously hired to do (well according to Stein, and you), they are lying about what they were legally obligated to do, right?
Just because they are not answering to the press does not mean they are wrong.
OnTheIce
CKA Elite
Posts: 4525
Posted: Mon Jan 16, 2012 10:16 am
Brenda wrote:
Kyocera has not kept their part of the "contract" (according to you and Stein), which is what the suit is all about. By not paying the man or letting the man do the job he was obviously hired to do (well according to Stein, and you), they are lying about what they were legally obligated to do, right?
Just because they are not answering to the press does not mean they are wrong.
They're not living up to their alleged contractual obligations. Got nothing to do with lying.
Brenda
CKA Uber
Posts: 44547
Posted: Mon Jan 16, 2012 10:32 am
OnTheIce wrote:
Brenda wrote:
Kyocera has not kept their part of the "contract" (according to you and Stein), which is what the suit is all about. By not paying the man or letting the man do the job he was obviously hired to do (well according to Stein, and you), they are lying about what they were legally obligated to do, right?
Just because they are not answering to the press does not mean they are wrong.
They're not living up to their alleged contractual obligations. Got nothing to do with lying.
You're really just nitpicking, aren't you.
"Alleged" contractual obligations? I thought you were certain there was a contract?
As you can see, there is NO written contract... phone calls and emails... but no written contract. Mind you, you could argue that there was a verbal contract/agreement, but we all know how hard those are to prove in court. Too much room for interpretation.
...I think Brenda should get a apology from all those who came down on her because she said there was no contract.
Really?
Perhaps we're reading a different file.
Specifically
"On February 16, 2011, defendant MILLER, President of defendant SEITER & MILLER sent Hurwitz and email headed "Ben Stein Contract"
The email said that Kyocera has decided to "withdrawal its offer" to BEN STEIN (despite the fact that there had already been offer and acceptance and change of position. i.e. a contract, not simply an offer)
I spent 23 years negotiating with clients... ...meet the clients ...take a look at the situation and decide where we want to go ...either write up an offer or give it verbally ...final negotiations ...if both parties agree, prepare and sign contracts
Seems they were still in the "final negotiations" stage. I'm not saying that the company should not get the blame here, or at least part of it. They should have researched Stein before making an offer. The fact that they used a "look-alike" in their ads also bothers me.
As you can see, there is NO written contract... phone calls and emails... but no written contract. Mind you, you could argue that there was a verbal contract/agreement, but we all know how hard those are to prove in court. Too much room for interpretation.
...I think Brenda should get a apology from all those who came down on her because she said there was no contract.
Really?
Perhaps we're reading a different file.
Specifically
"On February 16, 2011, defendant MILLER, President of defendant SEITER & MILLER sent Hurwitz and email headed "Ben Stein Contract"
The email said that Kyocera has decided to "withdrawal its offer" to BEN STEIN (despite the fact that there had already been offer and acceptance and change of position. i.e. a contract, not simply an offer)
I spent 23 years negotiating with clients... ...meet the clients ...take a look at the situation and decide where we want to go ...either write up an offer or give it verbally ...final negotiations ...if both parties agree, prepare and sign contracts
Seems they were still in the "final negotiations" stage.
That's my take on it too.
Quote:
I'm not saying that the company should not get the blame here, or at least part of it. They should have researched Stein before making an offer.
Absolutely.
Quote:
The fact that they used a "look-alike" in their ads also bothers me.
I would like to know what they paid this "look-alike". Not that it would make much of a difference, since (according to what is stated) they made the $300k offer to Stein, he did not demand that, but I'm just curious...
OnTheIce
CKA Elite
Posts: 4525
Posted: Mon Jan 16, 2012 11:14 am
Brenda wrote:
OnTheIce wrote:
Brenda wrote:
Kyocera has not kept their part of the "contract" (according to you and Stein), which is what the suit is all about. By not paying the man or letting the man do the job he was obviously hired to do (well according to Stein, and you), they are lying about what they were legally obligated to do, right?
Just because they are not answering to the press does not mean they are wrong.
They're not living up to their alleged contractual obligations. Got nothing to do with lying.
You're really just nitpicking, aren't you.
"Alleged" contractual obligations? I thought you were certain there was a contract?
Would you rather me be accurate, using the term "alleged" or continue on? And I'm the one nit picking?
OnTheIce
CKA Elite
Posts: 4525
Posted: Mon Jan 16, 2012 11:15 am
raydan wrote:
I spent 23 years negotiating with clients... ...meet the clients ...take a look at the situation and decide where we want to go ...either write up an offer or give it verbally ...final negotiations ...if both parties agree, prepare and sign contracts
Seems they were still in the "final negotiations" stage. I'm not saying that the company should not get the blame here, or at least part of it. They should have researched Stein before making an offer. The fact that they used a "look-alike" in their ads also bothers me.
How many entertainment related contracts have you done?
Lemmy
CKA Super Elite
Posts: 6972
Posted: Mon Jan 16, 2012 11:22 am
We don't know any of the so-called contract's details, do we? Without that knowledge, any discussion is moot. Labour contracts typically ARE NOT binding. You generally can't sue for breach of a labour contract. If you have a labour contract with your employer, for example, and you decide not to show up for work, your boss can refuse to pay you for that time, he/she can terminate your employment, but he can't sue you for breach of the contract. That's why pro athletes aren't sued by the teams for holding out as a negotiating tactic. A labour contract usuaully has no force until either the labour or the payment for that labour has been provided.
CKA Elite 
CKA Super Elite 
