I won’t post a link to a news article because there have been soooooooo many of them in the last few days, all focusing on different angles. I assume every reader here at least knows about this:
The case:
[ul][li] Trump announces his run for president, makes speech, says trashy things about Mexican immigrants. Outrage ensues.[/li][li] Univision announces they will break their contract to show his Miss Sex Object pageants.[/li][li] NBC does likewise.[/li][li] Trump threatens to sue both to enforce those multi-year contracts.[/ul][/li]Do his cases against Univision and NBC have legs? If not, why not? A contract’s a contract. Trumps idiotic political buffoonery doesn’t affect that, does it?
Do those sorts of contracts have some kind of escape clauses that would let networks out? A no-buffoonery clause? Maybe argue that Trump’s public statements have so embarrassed him in the public eye that many people will boycott watching the pageants, thus harming their value to advertisers, and thus harming their value to the networks?
You think? Contracts for employees and spokespeople and the like have those types of clauses, but this was an agreement between two companies, Miss Universe and Univision. It would seem a little strange to me for the contract to have a clause that covered the behaviour of a part owner of one of the parties. I can’t think of another case where I’ve heard of such a a clause coming up.
But of course, without access to the actual contract its impossible to say. Its hardly impossible given Trumps history that someone put a relevant clause in just for him.
If Trump can show damages as a result of the contracts being broken then he could win in court. I have no doubt that the contracts do not allow him to compel the networks to air his pageants, there will be explicit language in the contract about that, but if he can prove unavoidable losses he’ll prevail in a lawsuit. More than likely that will all be covered by insurance and there will be no lawsuit.
People sue people all the time, sometimes successfully. Contracts are broken all the time. Trump’s claims may have legs, as would anyone’s when a party does not fulfil its contractual obligations. It depends on what the contract says. There may be a liquidation clause in the contract so the injured party would get an agreed-upon amount of compensation.
Once again, you seem to be confusing lawyers with people. Lawyers are obligated to answer legal questions solely with statements that invoke legal principles - nobody else is.
Trump may have filed the suit against NBC and Univision, but that doesn’t mean that he’s going to have a trial. Some people frequently start by publicly announcing that they are going to sue someone. A small proportion of the time they will actually file the suit in court. A small proportion of the time they have filed the suit they will actually to go to trial. A small proportion of the time they go to trial they will actually win the case. They take the claim as far as they want to before they get something from their legal opponents.
I said ‘race war tactics’. Turn on any right-leaning tv news show, and you will ALWAYS see black people portrayed as gang members or some kind of criminal. It is important to certain forces on the right to keep the image of black people as criminals in the minds of the public, so that people don’t recognize the injustice of wrecking their lives with the criminal justice system in a modern-day Jim Crow kind of way the way we do in this country.
I characterized Mexicans as a ‘minority’. Portraying them as rapists is playing into the same American injustice that black people are subjected to. I think requiring a network to broadcast such filth is akin to requiring them to broadcast images of the Confederate flag over approving commentary. Shit, pastry chefs are all up in a tizzy about baking cakes for gay weddings, but networks are required to participate in the race war tactics of white supremecists? Get out of town!
1st amendment, baby! But I’m sure if I follow the thread long enough, the legal nitty-gritty (or even jiggery pokery!) will come out. Maybe you will even lay it out for me, who knows?
But you of all people need to learn: justice is often beyond the law. Discussing it is how we formalize justice.
You’re going to get opinions, everybody has one, and they all stink.
IMStinkyO, it’s going to depend on the contract. It is not inconceivable that there’s a performance clause that allows parties to exit the contract if Miss USA Management shits the bed, and turns the Miss USA Pageant into a toxic, worthless, property.
Trump’s tactics while this is hashed out will be to use his lawyers to keep making the networks spend on their lawyers (filing after filing, motion after motion) until someone at the beancounting department says it’s not worth it any more and settle in a way he can walk away claiming he won, just like happened with the birth certificate. Perhaps by making some third party buy him out of Miss Exploitverse at overvalue. I strongly suspect it’s not beyond the pale that he might have *wanted *this heavily Latino-driven property off his hands, and make sure whoever takes over will be getting damaged goods .