Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Show me their contract or shut the fuck up about it
tapatalk post
Been linked six times and your response is
Maybe Santa will bring you a pair of glasses and a new fucking attitude.
Really? What I saw was links to contracts that have morality clauses, never the exact contract that bound the Robertsons and A&E. We have absolutely no idea what the subject contract says.
Well I think that's why a typical contract language always says, "the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action it deems appropriate, including but not limited to terminating the production of the program". Nothing in there says or suggests "if action A is taken then action B must follow". It specifically precludes that.
Plus again, the next season's already in the can. What are they gonna do -- blur out Phil Robertson's face digitally and bleep his audio? That would call more attention to him than doing nothing.
Hell I'm not even a lawyer and I figured this stuff out in ten seconds. A&E has real lawyers. And I guarantee they were consulted not only before this contract was drawn up but also before A&E took its action.
"At its sole discretion". Doesn't leave wiggle room.
And juries have been known to toss out the fine print in contracts and go by what thy think is fair.
Juries are unpredictable and almost random at times.
What I am trying to deduce is why this scares the shit out of so many libtards.
Contracts are neither unpredictable nor random. A contract is binding; it's not up to a jury to determine a party is "guilty" or "not guilty" of following a contract.
I don't know who "libtards" are but all I'm doing is continually re-explaining the same things over and over to the unwashed who keep bringing it up after it's been explained so... if the shoe fits, nomsayin'....
Been linked six times and your response is
Maybe Santa will bring you a pair of glasses and a new fucking attitude.
Really? What I saw was links to contracts that have morality clauses, never the exact contract that bound the Robertsons and A&E. We have absolutely no idea what the subject contract says.
We're just supposed to accept their point of view.
And juries have been known to toss out the fine print in contracts and go by what thy think is fair.
Juries are unpredictable and almost random at times.
What I am trying to deduce is why this scares the shit out of so many libtards.
Contracts are neither unpredictable nor random. A contract is binding; it's not up to a jury to determine a party is "guilty" or "not guilty" of following a contract.
I don't know who "libtards" are but all I'm doing is continually re-explaining the same things over and over to the unwashed who keep bringing it up after it's been explained so... if the shoe fits, nomsayin'....
If that were true, there would never be a breach of contract lawsuit. There are dozens of breach of contract lawsuits all the time, every day hundreds are filed across the country. Litigation over what a breach is, who breached and what the damages are is a booming business.
Of course breach of contract cases can be heard by a jury. Most of them are. Google got a jury trial in its breach of contract case against Microsoft.
The Robertson/A&E case is not simple. It is very complicated. It isn't a Title VII case, it's just a breach of contract case, but that doesn't mean it's not complicated because it is.
Contracts are neither unpredictable nor random. A contract is binding; it's not up to a jury to determine a party is "guilty" or "not guilty" of following a contract.
I don't know who "libtards" are but all I'm doing is continually re-explaining the same things over and over to the unwashed who keep bringing it up after it's been explained so... if the shoe fits, nomsayin'....
If that were true, there would never be a breach of contract lawsuit. There are dozens of breach of contract lawsuits all the time, every day hundreds are filed across the country. Litigation over what a breach is, who breached and what the damages are is a booming business.
Of course breach of contract cases can be heard by a jury. Most of them are. Google got a jury trial in its breach of contract case against Microsoft.
The Robertson/A&E case is not simple. It is very complicated. It isn't a Title VII case, it's just a breach of contract case, but that doesn't mean it's not complicated because it is.
No, it isn't a breach of contract case unless some party actually breaches the contract.
Like for example the Robertsons quitting. That hasn't happened and ain't about to.
If that were true, there would never be a breach of contract lawsuit. There are dozens of breach of contract lawsuits all the time, every day hundreds are filed across the country. Litigation over what a breach is, who breached and what the damages are is a booming business.
Of course breach of contract cases can be heard by a jury. Most of them are. Google got a jury trial in its breach of contract case against Microsoft.
The Robertson/A&E case is not simple. It is very complicated. It isn't a Title VII case, it's just a breach of contract case, but that doesn't mean it's not complicated because it is.
No, it isn't a breach of contract case unless some party actually breaches the contract.
Like for example the Robertsons quitting. That hasn't happened and ain't about to.
You whole point was that Phil Robertson may have breached a morality clause that may or may not have been in the contract as you stated the morality clause to be so that A&E had a right to suspend him. That's arguable.
I don't know what the contract says. If there is a clause in the contract that has the Robertsons under contract as a group rather than as individuals, suspending one is suspending all. We don't know what the contract or contracts actually say. What we do know is that the Robertsons and in fact, everyone connected with the on-screen part of the show has indicated that if Phil Robertson is suspended they will not continue.
However, all that aside, the lawyers for A&E are spending this Christmas trying to wiggle the company out of the mess they got into because A&E has no case and no cause to suspend Phil Robertson at all.
An essential element to any claim is damages. Without provable damages there is simply no case. A&E has no damages other than what they bring on themselves. Hence, they have no case. Any action they bring is subject to a summary judgment and dismissal. Unless the Robertsons want to cross complain saying they are the ones who have been damaged. They have the better case.
Here's the way it works. If you think that the Robertsons threatened a breach by not appearing, the first thing A&E has to do is ask for assurances in writing. Assurances that the family intends to continue. If those assurances are not forthcoming, the right to sue for a breach becomes immediate. In this particular case, the right might become an obligation rather than milking the series for all they can first. Why? Because once the lawsuit is filed, the Robertsons can ask for an injunction to prevent further showing until the issues are resolved and the various rights and obligations are judicially determined.
Right now A&E's lawyers are scrambling about trying to find a graceful exit.
No, it isn't a breach of contract case unless some party actually breaches the contract.
Like for example the Robertsons quitting. That hasn't happened and ain't about to.
You whole point was that Phil Robertson may have breached a morality clause that may or may not have been in the contract as you stated the morality clause to be so that A&E had a right to suspend him. That's arguable.
I don't know what the contract says. If there is a clause in the contract that has the Robertsons under contract as a group rather than as individuals, suspending one is suspending all. We don't know what the contract or contracts actually say. What we do know is that the Robertsons and in fact, everyone connected with the on-screen part of the show has indicated that if Phil Robertson is suspended they will not continue.
However, all that aside, the lawyers for A&E are spending this Christmas trying to wiggle the company out of the mess they got into because A&E has no case and no cause to suspend Phil Robertson at all.
An essential element to any claim is damages. Without provable damages there is simply no case. A&E has no damages other than what they bring on themselves. Hence, they have no case. Any action they bring is subject to a summary judgment and dismissal. Unless the Robertsons want to cross complain saying they are the ones who have been damaged. They have the better case.
Here's the way it works. If you think that the Robertsons threatened a breach by not appearing, the first thing A&E has to do is ask for assurances in writing. Assurances that the family intends to continue. If those assurances are not forthcoming, the right to sue for a breach becomes immediate. In this particular case, the right might become an obligation rather than milking the series for all they can first. Why? Because once the lawsuit is filed, the Robertsons can ask for an injunction to prevent further showing until the issues are resolved and the various rights and obligations are judicially determined.
Right now A&E's lawyers are scrambling about trying to find a graceful exit.
"Damages"??
Damages are for claimed damages, as in a lawsuit, say for fraud or something. You're suggesting that Phil Robertson should sue for damages based on the morality clause he already signed? Is personal responsibility out the window now?
This would be like suing McDonald's because their coffee was too hot and burned your lap. Never mind that you're the one that spilled it.
The morality clause IS the assurance. That was done at the beginning. And I'm sure they each signed one individually. Milk this dead horse all you want; it's over and it's been over.
Enjoy your fantasy comic book with Paranoia-Man. Sheeeeeeeeeesh.
You whole point was that Phil Robertson may have breached a morality clause that may or may not have been in the contract as you stated the morality clause to be so that A&E had a right to suspend him. That's arguable.
I don't know what the contract says. If there is a clause in the contract that has the Robertsons under contract as a group rather than as individuals, suspending one is suspending all. We don't know what the contract or contracts actually say. What we do know is that the Robertsons and in fact, everyone connected with the on-screen part of the show has indicated that if Phil Robertson is suspended they will not continue.
However, all that aside, the lawyers for A&E are spending this Christmas trying to wiggle the company out of the mess they got into because A&E has no case and no cause to suspend Phil Robertson at all.
An essential element to any claim is damages. Without provable damages there is simply no case. A&E has no damages other than what they bring on themselves. Hence, they have no case. Any action they bring is subject to a summary judgment and dismissal. Unless the Robertsons want to cross complain saying they are the ones who have been damaged. They have the better case.
Here's the way it works. If you think that the Robertsons threatened a breach by not appearing, the first thing A&E has to do is ask for assurances in writing. Assurances that the family intends to continue. If those assurances are not forthcoming, the right to sue for a breach becomes immediate. In this particular case, the right might become an obligation rather than milking the series for all they can first. Why? Because once the lawsuit is filed, the Robertsons can ask for an injunction to prevent further showing until the issues are resolved and the various rights and obligations are judicially determined.
Right now A&E's lawyers are scrambling about trying to find a graceful exit.
"Damages"??
Damages are for claimed damages, as in a lawsuit, say for fraud or something. You're suggesting that Phil Robertson should sue for damages based on the morality clause he already signed? Is personal responsibility out the window now?
This would be like suing McDonald's because their coffee was too hot and burned your lap. Never mind that you're the one that spilled it.
The morality clause IS the assurance. That was done at the beginning. And I'm sure they each signed one individually. Milk this dead horse all you want; it's over and it's been over.
Enjoy your fantasy comic book with Paranoia-Man. Sheeeeeeeeeesh.
If A&E had no right to suspend Phil Robertson and it increasingly looks like they didn't. He can sue for any damages that result from the suspension. If A&E agreed on paying him money and withheld that money on the basis of the suspension, he has a right to all back pay plus interest. He might even be entitled to punitive and exemplary damages for their conduct in suspending him.
Yes it's over. Because A&E is on the losing end of a very expensive mistake.
"Damages"??
Damages are for claimed damages, as in a lawsuit, say for fraud or something. You're suggesting that Phil Robertson should sue for damages based on the morality clause he already signed? Is personal responsibility out the window now?
This would be like suing McDonald's because their coffee was too hot and burned your lap. Never mind that you're the one that spilled it.
The morality clause IS the assurance. That was done at the beginning. And I'm sure they each signed one individually. Milk this dead horse all you want; it's over and it's been over.
Enjoy your fantasy comic book with Paranoia-Man. Sheeeeeeeeeesh.
If A&E had no right to suspend Phil Robertson and it increasingly looks like they didn't. He can sue for any damages that result from the suspension. If A&E agreed on paying him money and withheld that money on the basis of the suspension, he has a right to all back pay plus interest. He might even be entitled to punitive and exemplary damages for their conduct in suspending him.
Yes it's over. Because A&E is on the losing end of a very expensive mistake.
"increasingly looks like they didn't"? Are you insane?
What the hell threads have you been reading? Because it ain't this one.
Morality clause, sister. Read it and weep. "increasingly looks like they didn't"... please.
You whole point was that Phil Robertson may have breached a morality clause that may or may not have been in the contract as you stated the morality clause to be so that A&E had a right to suspend him. That's arguable.
I don't know what the contract says. If there is a clause in the contract that has the Robertsons under contract as a group rather than as individuals, suspending one is suspending all. We don't know what the contract or contracts actually say. What we do know is that the Robertsons and in fact, everyone connected with the on-screen part of the show has indicated that if Phil Robertson is suspended they will not continue.
However, all that aside, the lawyers for A&E are spending this Christmas trying to wiggle the company out of the mess they got into because A&E has no case and no cause to suspend Phil Robertson at all.
An essential element to any claim is damages. Without provable damages there is simply no case. A&E has no damages other than what they bring on themselves. Hence, they have no case. Any action they bring is subject to a summary judgment and dismissal. Unless the Robertsons want to cross complain saying they are the ones who have been damaged. They have the better case.
Here's the way it works. If you think that the Robertsons threatened a breach by not appearing, the first thing A&E has to do is ask for assurances in writing. Assurances that the family intends to continue. If those assurances are not forthcoming, the right to sue for a breach becomes immediate. In this particular case, the right might become an obligation rather than milking the series for all they can first. Why? Because once the lawsuit is filed, the Robertsons can ask for an injunction to prevent further showing until the issues are resolved and the various rights and obligations are judicially determined.
Right now A&E's lawyers are scrambling about trying to find a graceful exit.
"Damages"??
Damages are for claimed damages, as in a lawsuit, say for fraud or something. You're suggesting that Phil Robertson should sue for damages based on the morality clause he already signed? Is personal responsibility out the window now?
This would be like suing McDonald's because their coffee was too hot and burned your lap. Never mind that you're the one that spilled it.
The morality clause IS the assurance. That was done at the beginning. And I'm sure they each signed one individually. Milk this dead horse all you want; it's over and it's been over.
Enjoy your fantasy comic book with Paranoia-Man. Sheeeeeeeeeesh.
If A&E had no right to suspend Phil Robertson and it increasingly looks like they didn't. He can sue for any damages that result from the suspension. If A&E agreed on paying him money and withheld that money on the basis of the suspension, he has a right to all back pay plus interest. He might even be entitled to punitive and exemplary damages for their conduct in suspending him.
Yes it's over. Because A&E is on the losing end of a very expensive mistake.
If A&E had no right to suspend Phil Robertson and it increasingly looks like they didn't. He can sue for any damages that result from the suspension. If A&E agreed on paying him money and withheld that money on the basis of the suspension, he has a right to all back pay plus interest. He might even be entitled to punitive and exemplary damages for their conduct in suspending him.
Yes it's over. Because A&E is on the losing end of a very expensive mistake.
"increasingly looks like they didn't"? Are you insane?
What the hell threads have you been reading? Because it ain't this one.
Morality clause, sister. Read it and weep. "increasingly looks like they didn't"... please.
I'm a lawyer and you aren't. That's the difference. For one thing, A&E might have voided their own morality clause by permitting the questioning when they were in a position to stop it. For another thing, violating the morality clause has to be the cause of actual harm to A&E. It can't be just that gays are unhappy. There has to be an actual loss a dimunition in the value of the show to A&E due to Robertson's conduct. Sponsors haven't withdrawn, but they have threatened to withdraw not only sponsorship of the show but all network sponsorship as well. By suspending Phil Robertson, A&E is causing actual or potential financial loss to the network. Next. A&E can hardly claim that because of Phil Robertson the show has become less valuable because they just increased the Christmas marathon from 7 hours to 25 hours. The show hasn't become less valuable, but MORE valuable.
They can't say that Phil Robertson violated a morality clause by being really really moral. They can only say that he damaged the Duck Dynasty brand and/or the A&E brand by certain conduct that someone, somewhere, found immoral. Because of that, the network lost viewers and sponsors. Except there was no damage. The brands have increased in value because of Robertson! Which is why it is increasingly looking like they had no right to suspend him in the first place. Any damage would be caused by the suspension, not by his violating the subject clause. A&E is in the "Cracker Barrel" trying to find a decent way out.
You are stuck in a ditch. To your way of thinking there was a morality clause, you know what it says because you found a boiler plate one on the internet. You know Robertson violated the morals clause because GLAAD complained. Therefore, it's over. Clearly it isn't. Some A&E executives have been going around cutting the throats of other A&E executives. Why? Money, that's why. DD is worth more today than it was before the GQ article and it's all because of what Phil Robertson said. A&E is capitalizing on it. They owe him a bundle.
If A&E had no right to suspend Phil Robertson and it increasingly looks like they didn't. He can sue for any damages that result from the suspension. If A&E agreed on paying him money and withheld that money on the basis of the suspension, he has a right to all back pay plus interest. He might even be entitled to punitive and exemplary damages for their conduct in suspending him.
Yes it's over. Because A&E is on the losing end of a very expensive mistake.
"increasingly looks like they didn't"? Are you insane?
What the hell threads have you been reading? Because it ain't this one.
Morality clause, sister. Read it and weep. "increasingly looks like they didn't"... please.
I'm a lawyer and you aren't. That's the difference. For one thing, A&E might have voided their own morality clause by permitting the questioning when they were in a position to stop it. For another thing, violating the morality clause has to be the cause of actual harm to A&E. It can't be just that gays are unhappy. There has to be an actual loss a dimunition in the value of the show to A&E due to Robertson's conduct. Sponsors haven't withdrawn, but they have threatened to withdraw not only sponsorship of the show but all network sponsorship as well. By suspending Phil Robertson, A&E is causing actual or potential financial loss to the network. Next. A&E can hardly claim that because of Phil Robertson the show has become less valuable because they just increased the Christmas marathon from 7 hours to 25 hours. The show hasn't become less valuable, but MORE valuable.
They can't say that Phil Robertson violated a morality clause by being really really moral. They can only say that he damaged the Duck Dynasty brand and/or the A&E brand by certain conduct that someone, somewhere, found immoral. Because of that, the network lost viewers and sponsors. Except there was no damage. The brands have increased in value because of Robertson! Which is why it is increasingly looking like they had no right to suspend him in the first place. Any damage would be caused by the suspension, not by his violating the subject clause. A&E is in the "Cracker Barrel" trying to find a decent way out.
You are stuck in a ditch. To your way of thinking there was a morality clause, you know what it says because you found a boiler plate one on the internet. You know Robertson violated the morals clause because GLAAD complained. Therefore, it's over. Clearly it isn't. Some A&E executives have been going around cutting the throats of other A&E executives. Why? Money, that's why. DD is worth more today than it was before the GQ article and it's all because of what Phil Robertson said. A&E is capitalizing on it. They owe him a bundle.
"increasingly looks like they didn't"? Are you insane?
What the hell threads have you been reading? Because it ain't this one.
Morality clause, sister. Read it and weep. "increasingly looks like they didn't"... please.
I'm a lawyer and you aren't. That's the difference. For one thing, A&E might have voided their own morality clause by permitting the questioning when they were in a position to stop it. For another thing, violating the morality clause has to be the cause of actual harm to A&E. It can't be just that gays are unhappy. There has to be an actual loss a dimunition in the value of the show to A&E due to Robertson's conduct. Sponsors haven't withdrawn, but they have threatened to withdraw not only sponsorship of the show but all network sponsorship as well. By suspending Phil Robertson, A&E is causing actual or potential financial loss to the network. Next. A&E can hardly claim that because of Phil Robertson the show has become less valuable because they just increased the Christmas marathon from 7 hours to 25 hours. The show hasn't become less valuable, but MORE valuable.
They can't say that Phil Robertson violated a morality clause by being really really moral. They can only say that he damaged the Duck Dynasty brand and/or the A&E brand by certain conduct that someone, somewhere, found immoral. Because of that, the network lost viewers and sponsors. Except there was no damage. The brands have increased in value because of Robertson! Which is why it is increasingly looking like they had no right to suspend him in the first place. Any damage would be caused by the suspension, not by his violating the subject clause. A&E is in the "Cracker Barrel" trying to find a decent way out.
You are stuck in a ditch. To your way of thinking there was a morality clause, you know what it says because you found a boiler plate one on the internet. You know Robertson violated the morals clause because GLAAD complained. Therefore, it's over. Clearly it isn't. Some A&E executives have been going around cutting the throats of other A&E executives. Why? Money, that's why. DD is worth more today than it was before the GQ article and it's all because of what Phil Robertson said. A&E is capitalizing on it. They owe him a bundle.
I may not be a lawyer, but I watch Judge Judy every day. That qualifies me to give legal advice on the Internet
Robertsons conduct embarrassed his employer and is no longer suited to fill the position he was hired for. Grounds for firing, always has been, always will be
"increasingly looks like they didn't"? Are you insane?
What the hell threads have you been reading? Because it ain't this one.
Morality clause, sister. Read it and weep. "increasingly looks like they didn't"... please.
I'm a lawyer and you aren't. That's the difference. For one thing, A&E might have voided their own morality clause by permitting the questioning when they were in a position to stop it. For another thing, violating the morality clause has to be the cause of actual harm to A&E. It can't be just that gays are unhappy. There has to be an actual loss a dimunition in the value of the show to A&E due to Robertson's conduct. Sponsors haven't withdrawn, but they have threatened to withdraw not only sponsorship of the show but all network sponsorship as well. By suspending Phil Robertson, A&E is causing actual or potential financial loss to the network. Next. A&E can hardly claim that because of Phil Robertson the show has become less valuable because they just increased the Christmas marathon from 7 hours to 25 hours. The show hasn't become less valuable, but MORE valuable.
They can't say that Phil Robertson violated a morality clause by being really really moral. They can only say that he damaged the Duck Dynasty brand and/or the A&E brand by certain conduct that someone, somewhere, found immoral. Because of that, the network lost viewers and sponsors. Except there was no damage. The brands have increased in value because of Robertson! Which is why it is increasingly looking like they had no right to suspend him in the first place. Any damage would be caused by the suspension, not by his violating the subject clause. A&E is in the "Cracker Barrel" trying to find a decent way out.
You are stuck in a ditch. To your way of thinking there was a morality clause, you know what it says because you found a boiler plate one on the internet. You know Robertson violated the morals clause because GLAAD complained. Therefore, it's over. Clearly it isn't. Some A&E executives have been going around cutting the throats of other A&E executives. Why? Money, that's why. DD is worth more today than it was before the GQ article and it's all because of what Phil Robertson said. A&E is capitalizing on it. They owe him a bundle.
Please. I can tell in the first two lines you're no lawyer. Your continued ignorance of what "morality clause" means just reconfirms that.
But your power of self-delusion is impressive.
Motion to kiss my ass.
It is hilarious how obsessed you folks are over a thought some guy who lives in a swamp had.
No, methinks the thought originated over thousands of years in various terrains, various different cultures but agreed on basic morality.
It is this confine of morality that is under attack by fascists like GLAAD who want to subordinate EVERYTHING to the interests of Identity Politics; the new version of racism in our time.
I'm a lawyer and you aren't. That's the difference. For one thing, A&E might have voided their own morality clause by permitting the questioning when they were in a position to stop it. For another thing, violating the morality clause has to be the cause of actual harm to A&E. It can't be just that gays are unhappy. There has to be an actual loss a dimunition in the value of the show to A&E due to Robertson's conduct. Sponsors haven't withdrawn, but they have threatened to withdraw not only sponsorship of the show but all network sponsorship as well. By suspending Phil Robertson, A&E is causing actual or potential financial loss to the network. Next. A&E can hardly claim that because of Phil Robertson the show has become less valuable because they just increased the Christmas marathon from 7 hours to 25 hours. The show hasn't become less valuable, but MORE valuable.
They can't say that Phil Robertson violated a morality clause by being really really moral. They can only say that he damaged the Duck Dynasty brand and/or the A&E brand by certain conduct that someone, somewhere, found immoral. Because of that, the network lost viewers and sponsors. Except there was no damage. The brands have increased in value because of Robertson! Which is why it is increasingly looking like they had no right to suspend him in the first place. Any damage would be caused by the suspension, not by his violating the subject clause. A&E is in the "Cracker Barrel" trying to find a decent way out.
You are stuck in a ditch. To your way of thinking there was a morality clause, you know what it says because you found a boiler plate one on the internet. You know Robertson violated the morals clause because GLAAD complained. Therefore, it's over. Clearly it isn't. Some A&E executives have been going around cutting the throats of other A&E executives. Why? Money, that's why. DD is worth more today than it was before the GQ article and it's all because of what Phil Robertson said. A&E is capitalizing on it. They owe him a bundle.
I may not be a lawyer, but I watch Judge Judy every day. That qualifies me to give legal advice on the Internet
Robertsons conduct embarrassed his employer and is no longer suited to fill the position he was hired for. Grounds for firing, always has been, always will be
The employer embarrassed themselves, and as a result of Phil Robertson's conduct A&E was forced to increase their income by several million dollars.
A&E should do the right thing like Cracker Barrel did and apologize.
I may not be a lawyer, but I watch Judge Judy every day. That qualifies me to give legal advice on the Internet
Robertsons conduct embarrassed his employer and is no longer suited to fill the position he was hired for. Grounds for firing, always has been, always will be
The employer embarrassed themselves, and as a result of Phil Robertson's conduct A&E was forced to increase their income by several million dollars.
A&E should do the right thing like Cracker Barrel did and apologize.
Well Councellor, you must address the legal concept of the boss is always right. When it comes to hiring and firing decisions, A&E can do what is best for the network
Robertson fucked up by shooting his mouth off......people get fired all the time for less
