There is an interesting and thoroughly sordid legal matter going on now between a gay porn star named Brent Corrigan (I won’t link for obvious reasons but it’s easy enough to Google) who states now that he was underaged by almost a year when he began his “career”. The studio owner (who’s as sleazy as his stereotype would be) is suing him for numerous charges including breach of contract. Producer states that he does not believe Corrigan (whose real name he gave out on several websites, and ironically it’s more the name of a porn star than his porn name, but still dirty pool as that can be dangerous for somebody in his field) is underage as Corrigan supplied him with three proofs of age before shooting and has refused to submit a copy of his “real” birth certificate and other documents after repeated requests. The producer states that he paid him to make X number of porn films (I don’t remember exactly how many) and Corrigan still has 2 left on his contract for which he has already received the money. All of the movies are to be bareback (i.e. no condom) and all of them featuring Corrigan as the “recipient” in some sex scenes.
Now, suppose that the producer’s case is true and that Corrigan really is lying about his age. Further suppose that Corrigan has no money (which I think is valid). Can the producer legally force Corrigan to have sex (unprotected and passively at that) against his will in order to honor the contract, or would this be the same as rape? For that matter, can anybody be coerced into performing a service (say, I hire a painter to paint my house and pay him in advance and he doesn’t do so) or can the defendant in such a case only be held liable for money damages? Can they face jailtime if they refuse to either repay the money or perform the service?
Interesting case. I’m sure it’ll find it’s way onto some legal show in the near future.
No court in the USA would force Corrigan to have sex to fulfill the contract. They would place a monetary value on the contract and he’d owe that amount.
My guess would be something like this: Corrigan is paid in advance something like $10k for 4 films, he has two left, the court would award sleazy studio owner $5k plus legal.
Sleazy studio owner collecting on the money is a different story.
There wouldn’t be jail time for a civil case unless it can be shown the defendant was attempting some sort of fraud.
In the case of your painter. If you paid your painter and he never showed up you can sue him for the amount you paid him plus legal.
If this painter has a history of duping people into paying for services he never intends to fulfill, then the PD might be interested in going after this guy.
I defer to someone whose civil law experience is fresher and more involved than law school…
…but as a general proposition, courts are not very likely to order specific performance on services. Genrally, a breach of a service-type contract is remedied with payment of damages. Specific performance is most often seen in contracts for conveyance of property: Smith sells Jones some land, then reneges on the deal. That kind of contract will often end with Smith being ordered to perform.
However, I do recall there being some sort of exception in the case of literal performance contracts: if Smiith contracts with Jones to perform a part in a play, and Jones is the only actor who could perform the role in the requisite manner, then there’s no real substitute for Jones. But even then, there’s a practical issue in getting the best performance out of an ordered but unmotivated Jones. Even then, I think Smith has to show his damages and his remedy is money, not performance.
Awesome question, Sampiro. Okay, now just imagine his character is supposed to play the part of an unwilling participant! is this adding insult to injury or just good method acting?
Back when I studied some elementary contract law in Australia, I learned that courts generally will not order specific performance of a contract for services, regardless of how legal the services might be. So if A contracted to work for B for 4 months, and only worked 2 months, the court won’t order the missing 2 months’ worth of work, at last in part because that would amount to a form of slavery, and partly because (except in very rare circumstances) monetary damages will suffice.
In this case there may be other questions of whether the contract as a whole is legal, if it involved an under-aged person (i.e., a person legally unable to consent) being required to engage in sexual activity. The contract as a whole may be void, and the studio owner might be guilty of statutory rape (as that can take place even if the rapee provides evidence that they were old enough to consent). If I were the studio owner, I would not be going anywhere near the courts.
I should add that, even if the age of consent for gay sex is less than 18 in the relevant jurisdiction, there’s also the serious criminal offense of child pornography that the studio owner might be charged with, even if he seriously believed the actor to be over 18.
Nobody can be forced to honor a contract. You cannot make a football player play or an opera singer sing. You can sue them for “punitive damages” but see #1 above.
I doubt that any judge in the country would enforce a porn contract.
If a pro basketball player refuses to play for a team, the team can’t sue him for specific performance and force him to play. A court order forcing someone to perform a contract for services would violate the 13th Amendment. What the court can do is allow damages or issue an injunction against his playing for any other team.
Same thing here. A court can’t and won’t force someone to be a sex slave, but it can award damages and enjoin him from making such a film with any other company, assuming contracts for making adult films are valid and enforceable.
Everybody has already touched on specific performance. My last civil case on this matter was 5 years ago. We pushed for and got liquidated damages, which I’m surprised isn’t in the studio contract (considering how many lawyers they must have). When I first learned about this in law school, we were told how big a dick Pavarotti is. He would cancel performances as often as changing his underwear.
In a pretty similar earlier incident, Kim Basinger backed out of performing in Boxing Helena. Just wasn’t forced to do the role, but ended up owing a $8 million and declared bankrupcy. Of course, hubby at the time, Alec Baldwin, took care of poor Kim.
I’m curious as to why you think a judge wouldn’t enforce this contract? (assuming the person in question was of legal age of course) It’s not illegal to produce porn, so why would it be different from any other contract?
I’m guessing you say that because for some people porn is morally wrong, but if a judge was to not enforce an otherwise legal contact because they didn’t like the morality of it, I would say they should be removed from the bench. Feel free to correct my guess if it’s wrong.
Again, from my memory of the common law of contracts (in England and Australia), judges will not enforce gambling contracts because of “public policy”. Not because gambling is illegal, but because the state should not enforce such contracts. In a jurisdiction where prostitution is legal, they might well not enforce a contract involving prostitution, e.g., if the prostitute has done his or her side of the bargain, they might not require the client to pay the agreed-on fee. I doubt if it’s ever been tested, but the same principle might apply to a contract involving hard-core pornography.
I’ve got a meeting in a moment, so no time to look it up, but if memory serves me correctly all contracts involving sexual activity are void *ab initio * and consequently unenforceable. I’ll try to get a cite later (or am I totally out of my tree?).
There are some other issues here, but this case would probably be resolved on basic contractual grounds, assuming Corrigan is telling the truth: A minor can disaffirm a contract for a reasonable time after he reaches the age of majority. This is generally so even if the minor misrepresents his age at the time of contractin, although some jurisdictions hold the minor liable if misrepresentation is proven.
If Corrigan was a minor when he signed the contract, specific performance is probably not an option. The best the studio can do is get some of its money back.
Sleazy as the producer may be, Corrigan does sound like a hustling cheat. If he gave 3 age references and is refusing to give a copy of his “real” birth certificate to settle the matter, I’m not so sure the Producer is wrong in his suspicion that he is being played by Corrigan.
Sorry, Bricker. Just teasing.
What an interesting question. What about using someone else’s body and superimposing his face? In the age of computer graphics, that’s a distinct possibility.
Of course if he wasn’t a minor when he signed the contract (he is lying now) he is [del]fuc[/del] in worse shape.
He could be found liable for damages. Contract damages are far more than the amount paid out. The production company, in the hypothetical $10,000 contract expected to profit. Basic contract damages are expectancy damages. Error - page cannot be found
So, if the production company can prove that it reasonably expected to make $30,000 profit on the last two videos, it would get an amount well above $5,000. Also, it is not clear, as mazinger_z pointed out, there may be a liquidated damages clause in the contract.
Specific performance of a personal service contract, is probably not constitutionally barred, but is not likely here. Courts are squeamish about them for lots of reasons.
Likely defenses include:
Public policy (contract with sex as consideration)
Illegality (especially if he was a minor when he entered into the contract). Before Lawrence, the existence of a sodomy statute would be a big help too. Now, not.
Something else that I can’t remember right now.
It also appears that there were multiple jurisdictions involved. Choice of law may be a crucial issue.
Gotta disagree that it’s not constituionally barred. Specific performance for a personal services contract is generally considered unavailable due to both public policy and the 13th Amendment prohibition on involuntary servitude. For example, this case:
“An unwilling employee cannot be compelled to continue to provide services to his employer either by ordering specific performance of his contract, or by injunction. To do so runs afoul of the Thirteenth Amendment’s prohibition against involuntary servitude.” Beverly Glen Music v. Warner Communications, Inc., 178 Cal.App.3d 1142, 224 Cal. Rptr. 260, Cal.App 2 Sist., 1986.
