[raydan]

OnTheIce wrote:

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?

A contract is a contract, negotiations are negotiations. Besides, even Stein said they were still negotiating what kind of tea he wanted. If they were still negotiating, there was no signed contract.

We could argue for a while but I'm done, we're both too pig-headed to admit defeat. Thing is, we'll never know if there was a contract because this will probably never go to court. I see an out-of-court, undisclosed settlement in the near future.

[raydan]

Lemmy wrote:

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.

I'm not sure about this one. Correct me if I'm wrong, but haven't film companies in the past sued actors who signed contracts and then refused to do the movie?

[Brenda]

OnTheIce wrote:

Would you rather me be accurate, using the term "alleged" or continue on? And I'm the one nit picking?

Kinda late, isn't it? You should have done that from the start, but you chose to attack me for saying there was no signed contract, AND no work done, so no right to any compensation.

[Brenda]

raydan wrote:

Lemmy wrote:

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.

I'm not sure about this one. Correct me if I'm wrong, but haven't film companies in the past sued actors who signed contracts and then refused to do the movie?

Wouldn't that be for advertising costs and stuff?
When you have a signed contract, you can promote your (still to be shot) movie with that actors name, and when you are pitching your movie to certain studio's or tv-stations, and that actor is not doing it, you might be sued because you sold a movie to them using a wrong name...

[Lemmy]

raydan wrote:

I'm not sure about this one. Correct me if I'm wrong, but haven't film companies in the past sued actors who signed contracts and then refused to do the movie?

I'm not sure. That's why I said "typically". Could movie contracts be different from others because producers need star-commitment to secure funding? I don't know. That's why I suggested we'd need to see the exact details of the contract. It's possible to put just about any condition into a contract that you can imagine, provided both parties agree to it. But typically, there can be no breach of a labour contract until someone has either done work or been paid for work.

[OnTheIce]

Brenda wrote:

OnTheIce wrote:

Would you rather me be accurate, using the term "alleged" or continue on? And I'm the one nit picking?

Kinda late, isn't it? You should have done that from the start, but you chose to attack me for saying there was no signed contract, AND no work done, so no right to any compensation.

Are you really questioning me on accuracy?

Your entire argument is based on assumption and speculation.

[Brenda]

OnTheIce wrote:

Brenda wrote:

OnTheIce wrote:

Would you rather me be accurate, using the term "alleged" or continue on? And I'm the one nit picking?

Kinda late, isn't it? You should have done that from the start, but you chose to attack me for saying there was no signed contract, AND no work done, so no right to any compensation.

Are you really questioning me on accuracy?

Your entire argument is based on assumption and speculation.

This whole thread is based on assumption and speculation, simply because we do not have the facts. You chose to attack me.

Again, we will see what the judge has to say, starting Wednesday.

[Guy_Fawkes]

OnTheIce wrote:

Guy_Fawkes wrote:

Regardless if he signed or not, it's Steins views on science that lost him this job not religion.

He believes God is responsible for weather, not mankind...hence the religion argument.

Watch Expelled, Stein thinks God does MANY things that science has explained, infact he feels some fields of science are the work of the devil.