So sue me. (This is IMHO).
According to the lawsuit, which I read before commenting on it, the contract’s Section 5(b) contains the acceptable reasons for termination of the contract. 5(b)(i) allows termination by either party in case of bankruptcy; 5(b)(ii) gives Trump the right to cancel if Univision doesn’t pay the license fee or “breaches or fails to timely cure any material obligation,” and 5(b)(iii) gives Univision the right to cancel if Trump grants these same broadcast rights to someone else or “breaches or fails to timely cure any material obligation.”
So I don’t agree that all we can do is speculate. I think we can read the complaint and discuss its apparent legal merits. Of course, the complaint is one party’s advocacy for their claim, but it would be highly unusual for the complaint to falsely represent written contract elements.
On the other hand, the complaint alleges that a “high-ranking Univision executive” called Trump and although “clearly nervous and unable to get the words out” said that despite recognizing their clear and unambiguous obligation, Univision was cancelling the show and planned to simply pay Trump the $13.5 million license fee. I think allegations like that should be regarded with a large grain of salt, as self-serving assertions that are not subject to rigorous proof.
The First Amendment does not operate to prevent me from opining on what you shouldn’t be allowed to say.
Just as it doesn’t operate to prevent you from opining that networks should be allowed to disregard contracts if they feel the party to them is using “race war” language.
I agree with that stinky opinion. I have only seen snippets of the pageant. As far as I know Trump didn’t have any on air link to the show. A performance or morals clause in a contract would be less likely to cover something said in the private life of a producer than with on air talent. If there was a current contract for The Apprentice I could see them getting out of it easily due to off show comments. I think it is much less likely for there to be a clause covering off air management and their comments. Of course that’s just a stinky opinion and speculation without looking at the contract.
Got a link to the text of the lawsuit? And is it possible that Trump’s claim is omitting that portion of the contract that contains clauses as to moral behavior, defamation and so forth? IOW, the parts that might be relevant to the justification Univision has for terminating the contract.
I haven’t seen anything that says specifically that the lawsuit has been filed. Trump stated that papers had been filed but coming this quickly I have a feeling a notice of tort claim was filed not the actual lawsuit. I would think that the contracts would be sufficiently complex to make it difficult to put together a lawsuit in a day.
Univision is a giant corporation and Trump’s litigiousness is well-known, so, purely on speculation, I’m willing to bet that they didn’t make this decision without finding a way to break the contract.
Assuming the suit fully identified the accepable reasons for termination, the question would then be around ‘material obligations’. Does Trump have an ‘obligation’ to avoid destroying the value of the contract by calling Univision’s viewers drug dealers and rapists?
It’s possible, but very unlikely. Few things would poison a litigant’s credibility position quicker than making a sweeping claim like this and having the defendant be able to file an answer that says, “The plaintiff doesn’t mention 5(b)(vi) which allows termination in case of immoral behavior on the part of MUO.”
My source isn’t publicly reachable, but I bet someone has posted it by now. Let me look for a public link.
That’s a good question. I don’t know – I suppose Univision would have to show that this destroyed the value of the contract.
According to the complaint, Univision agreed to pay Trump the license fee it would have paid anyway. Trump is suing because he contends he suffered damages beyond that license fee.
It was filed yesterday.
IANAL, but one might argue that in making such statements, Trump ensured that a percentage of Univision’s audience will boycott or otherwise refuse to watch the pageant, thereby reducing the revenue potential for Univision. Univision could call some viewers to the stand to say that they were planning to watch it, but changed their minds, based on his statements.
Assume the worst: Unless the case is summarily dismissed (by citing an exit clause, for example) it probably haz legs. So, case goes to trial, Trump gets damages more or less equivalent to his expected revenues under the contracts.
I wonder what his future is with respect to ever getting a TV presence under contract ever again? He’s gnawing away on the hands that feed him. I think he’s just fucked himself whether or not he drops the case or settles before trial.
The full lawsuit with all claims and documents or a notice of tort claim?
Not my area of law, but it’s 19 pages of specific allegations and to my eyes looks like a full recitation of claims. But I am not a civil lawyer, and not a New York lawyer either.
Sure – but those are questions of fact for a trial court. If the case gets to trial, surviving 10(b)(6) and Rule 56 motions, I think it’s fair to say it has “legs.” Don’t you?
If only there had been some way for the executives at NBC and Univision to foresee Trump saying something stupid and hateful, they could have avoided this whole thing in the first place by not doing business with him…
The lawsuit is here if anyone wants to look at it.
Also, at a Univision spokesperson told Politico what they thought of the lawsuit:
They don’t sound particularly worried.
In discussing lawsuits, lawyers and corporate PR officials never sound worried.