Below is an excerpt from the contract the contestants have to sign to be on the Bachelorette show. Supposedly this show is quite creative when editing what a contestant is saying. They may take one part of a sentence and merge it with another to make it sound like the person said something completely different. For example, they might take these sentences:
I don’t know what I’ll do later.
I can’t wait until she finds out how much I love her.
And make:
I don’t know what I’ll do if she finds out
And play it along with some accusation from someone that he has a girlfriend, thus implying that the guy is worried he’ll be discovered.
Usually the edits are not too far from the truth. But how creative can they get according to the contract? Can they create total fabrications? Can they splice whatever they want to create whatever they want? Can they take this:
I hate black licorice
People are important
And make:
I hate black people
Or splice together things to imply criminal activity (I killed a neighbor/I have sex with children/etc).
If you want to be a legal realist about it, contracts are powerful in two ways. First, the courts will enforce their terms as permitted by public policy and subject to the restraints of unconscionability. Second, the party to be charged believes the contract will be so enforced and complies more readily than he otherwise would.
Of course, unsophisticated parties might not appreciate that some contractual terms will not be enforced, and so these clauses take on what’s known as an in terrorem quality. They are designed to dissuade lawsuits, even if in reality it’s not nearly so cut-and-dried.
I think most courts would bar the suit so long as the false light portrayal is within the realm of the kind of editing a contestant might expect would be done to drum up ratings. More outrageous and not reasonably expected editing jobs (such as editing to make it appear one is using reviling racial epithets or confessions of criminal behavior) are much more likely to be actionable. It has long been a principle of contract that where there is a one-sided misunderstanding, where the non-misunderstanding party has reason to know of the other party’s misapprehension, the contract will be construed according to the misunderstanding party’s impression of the contract’s terms. Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 20(2).
Outside the edit window: I have some boring procedural notes to attach to my phrase “bar the suit” above, which really is a sloppy description. In states that recognize a distinction, construction of unambiguous contracts is a matter of law and decideable on summary judgment. Interpretation of a contract, especially where the contract is ambiguous, goes to the jury.
The reality-show producers will argue the contract is unambiguous while the plaintiff participant will argue the contract is not. Depending on who convinces the judge at the summary judgment stage, the matter will be dismissed or go to the jury. However, unconscionability, another possible defense to enforcement, is a matter of law, so the plaintiff may win on an MSJ using that theory.
I am not a lawyer, nor do I have relevant expereince - so that probably tells you what these comments are worth.
But its been my understanding that egregariously unfair contracts can generally be voided and instead interpreted in accordance with what reasonable people would expect. Regardless of how “clear” they are.
What Kimmy said, as usual. One other note – when one party writes the contract, ambiguous provisions will typically be resolved in favor or the non-drafting party. Which is another point in the hypothetical contestant’s favor.
Not what bengangmo said. Well, that may be true in some instances, but courts are loath to rewrite contracts, even if they’re unfair. Because if the guy was getting that raw a deal, he could have just chosen to walk away. It’s not the court’s job to determine what price is fair. The parties do that – it’s sort of the whole point of having a contract in the first place – so you counterparty can lock in your performance even if, in hindsight, you realize you shouldn’t have taken the deal.
Of course, when one party is substantially more sophisticated and well-resourced, it can be a different matter. But that’s not the same thing – contestant couldn’t possibly be held to understand what he was agreeing to is different than contestant made a stupid deal and now wants to back out.
Anecdotally, years ago, during an early season of one of these dating shows, I happened to be working with a college friend of one of the contestants. This woman had seemed to have her head on her shoulders much more than most of her peers. So it was a shock, when the himbo sent her home, to see her crying during her exit interview and blubbering “I (sob sob) really (sob sob) loooved him!” The next day at work, my colleague got a call from her fuming friend. Apparently the interview went on for a good long time, during which the show staff asked her why she had decided to go on the show. She had, it seemed, just split up with her long-term boyfriend of many years. As the producer probed that topic for several minutes, the woman got choked up and delivered the line in question. Whereupon the producers spliced it to make it look like she was talking about the slab of beef she’d known for a week and a half, put it on the air, and went home proud of their day’s work.