This is in fact a part of the lawsuit. Corrigan has since started a self named blog/website on which he wants to have a for-pay photo and film gallery (and which I’m guessing would be his primary source of income). Cobra Video has prevented him from so doing until this matter is somehow resolved.
Thanks for all answers, btw. I didn’t think he could be forced to do the movies (I know obviously he can’t be physically forced, but the judge can’t tell him “do this or you’re in contempt of court… ooh, and do that thing with your butt tattoo while you’re at it! And could you sign this picture… it’s for my son, whose name is also Judge…” sorry, off track-
anyway, I knew he couldn’t be physically forced but I didn’t know if he could be court ordered to fulfill the contract. However, he could conceivably be faced with such a huge financial blo… detriment that it would be in his best interest to do so. (No, I don’t think that would be hot, so stop looking at me that way… alright, just a little… but it’s BECAUSE I CARE ABOUT JUSTICE IN THIS COUNTRY!)
So, if it turns out that the producer can prove beyond reasonable doubt that he had no reason to believe Corrigan was lying to him and that Corrigan did present him with false ID forms, would the producer still be in trouble for making a porn film with an underaged actor? (While Corrigan is gay, I understand that the “false ID” thing is a staple of straight porn as well.)
I think that’s right under common law, but honestly I think that today the right judge on the right day with the right case would be willing to revise that proposition. Porn is a big business and despite its skeeve factor, it’s above board and legal. I’d be willing to enforce such contracts were I a judge as a general matter.
We’ve had a number of threads on why porn doesn’t equal prostitution, and the gist of them has always been that the actors aren’t being paid to have sex; they’re being paid to appear in a movie. Wouldn’t the same thing apply here in response to the above defense, that the sleazy producer isn’t contracting with Corrigan to have sex but to appear in a film?
I would tend to agree. After all, murder is pretty much illegal, but if Al Pacino signed a contract for “Scarface II: Resurrection” , I think courts would find it enforceable, even if the contract called for him to depict murder in the movie.
BTW, I don’t know whether to be delighted or disappointed that this thread has gone for all these posts and nobody has made any comment about it being an “oral contract”.
pravnik has nailed it. No specific performance would be ordered here, for the reason he has stated. Same analysis would apply if it were a contract to mow the employer’s lawn - the sexual part of the issue is irrelevant to this analysis.
Potentially, there are other defenses here, depending on the facts that are proven at trial. If the employee was underage, the subject of the contract was illegal, and therefore the contract is unenforceable. (that’s the public policy concept some others have mentioned.)
If this legal principle is also ignored (i.e, it isassumed that there is no applicable law against underage sex, or child pornography), a minor is usually not considered to have the capacity to form a legal contract. (There are some exceptions, such as contracts for necessities of life, which don’t apply here. Also, as someone has said, the minor might be bound if he doesn’t promtly disavow the contract upon becoming an adult.)
Forgot the disclaimer: This is general information and not legal reliable legal advice. I’m not your attorney. State laws vary. If you are an actual underaged sex slave seeking to avoid a contract, see a lawyer licensed in your state for advice.
I’m sure the defense would raise the issue. But here they aren’t prosecuting the producer for hiring people to have sex with each other. Instead, the producer is seeking to force the actor to have sex. Contracts in which sex is the consideration (in this case, for example, to perform :eek: his contract, Corrigan must have sex. Many courts will refuse to enforce such contracts. Cf.http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=352102
Fair enough. I looked into the issue a while back, but I haven’t checked recently. Do you know of other cases? IIRC, I would say overall, a lot of courts hint that there might be 13th amendment problems and others, a few lower courts have made it the basis of their refusal to order specific performance, and commentators are all over the place. But I defer to you more recent research.
Here is professor Randy Barnett’s read on the situation:
OTOH, Professor Barnett notes a little later on, “If a contract itself specifies that the party in breach should refrain from performing a given act - as it did in the famous injunction case of Lumley v. Wagner, 1 DeG. M. & G. 604, 42 Eng. Rep. 687 (Ch. 1852) - then an injunction is a form of specific performance. If there is no such term (either expressed or implied-in-fact) in the agreement then there is no consensual basis for such relief.”
In other words, most courts think it is ok to force the defendant to complete the contract by barring him from doing something else, which somehow makes the completion voluntary.
Under the Supreme Court’s 13th Amendment cases, either both qualify, or neither does. US. V. Kozminski (scope of 13th Amendment limited to cases involving the compulsion of services by the use or threatened use of physical or legal coercion.); but see, Robertson v. Baldwin (approving laws preventing sailors who contracted to work on vessels from deserting their ships as exceptional cases existing at the time of the Thirteenth Amendment).
Hmmm… so Corrigan could then settle the claim by aggreeing to appear in two videos in the role of “wacky neighbor offering clever insights from his front porch”, as opposed to in that of “bottom in scenes 1 and 3; third from the right in multiple-gloryhole scene”? That would be an interesting “pox on both” type of ruling: actor has to work with the team he can’t stand, team has to forego using actor in role they wanted.
In any case, the producer must have some seriously airtight case here – if Corrigan could prove that he indeed WAS under 18 when he performed the first part of the contract, the producer risks losing BIG.
In general, child pornography is a strict liability offense. In other words, it doesn’t matter how badly (or well) Corrigan lied, or how sincerely the producer believed that Corrigan was legal. From a public policy perspective, of course, this makes sense: it puts the burden on the producer to ensure that s/he is working only with adults. Honestly, if the producer cared about this at all, s/he could have Corrigan’s birth certificate in a day.
Punitive damages generally are not available for a breach of contract action. They are only available when the action complained of gives rise to a separate tort. Here, I don’t see a tort, but simply a breach of contract, so punitives aren’t available.
My own practical experience with civil law is limited to a single case, but I wonder if the actor wouldn’t also be in legal jeopardy for asserting that he was underage in affadavids (assuming of course that he does in actual fact turn out not to have been underage when he signed the contract). Is there any particular reason that he wouldn’t be guilty of perjury (the crime, not just morally) in this case?
So here’s another question: suppose Corrigan was underage at the time he of his contract and further suppose that the producer did not know it and had every reason to believe that Corrigan was 18. In this situation Corrigan’s actions most definitely caused demonstrable financial damage to the producer (legal fees, loss of revenue from video titles that were pulled upon learning Corrigan’s age, etc.)- $100,000 is not an inconceivable figure and he is most definitely guilty of fraud, BUT AT THE SAME TIME he was still a minor at the time of his contract and any illegal action (fraud, conspiracy, etc.) was also committed by a minor. Does this by itself still negate the contract and can he still be held liable for punitive/actual damages even though he was a minor both in terms of the contract and how he should be punished for illegality of his actions?
Corrigan on his web site (which I really did go to because I think this case is interesting- he’s not my type [I prefer guys who went through puberty *before* I bought most of the clothes in my closet) states that he is considering suing his former producer for, among other things, libel (the producer has stated he is an escort, which Corrigan says is untrue [though I would be curious to know how an 18 year old from a poor family affords a house in the Arizona hills with a swimming pool and large fenced backyard]) and has repeatedly used Corrigan’s real name and location, which he says (and I honestly think he is perfectly reasonable in saying) is spiteful and endangers his safety. (Numerous Hollywood celebs [including people like Sharon Gless who you don’t tend to regard as a superstar or as a bombshell or controversial figure] have had dangerous stalkers but at least they usually have the money for security guards and well protected houses; a porn star is liable to have even more deranged fans because their appeal is totally and irrevocably connected to explicit sexuality [giving extra dementia material] and they can’t usually afford anything akin to a mainstream celebrity’s security measures.)
Do you believe that Corrigan’s case has merit on the endangerment part, or that an 18 year old has been maligned by being called a prostitute even if he is not if he has, essentially, had sex for money (on camera)?
Speaking of obsessed stalkers, I’m really not one, but I think this case is just interesting for a variety of reasons.
A minor lacks capacity to enter into contracts. It’s irrelevant whether the contract at issue is for making movies, or whether it’s just a cell-phone contract. So most jurisdictions have a statute that lays out the rule that a minor can repudiate a contract without being in breach of it:
Generally, the minor has a certain amount of time after reaching majority to disavow the contract. The next and obvious question is whether he has to give back what he’s gotten under the contract (or at least the unfulfilled part of the contract). I defer to my learned brothers on that one; I’m tired and going to bed.
Generally, allegations that someone is a prostitute are considered slander per se. Here is a decent article about defamation.
My personal opinion? I would not necessarily call it slander. I might, if pressed, call it “leverage.”
Of course it’s self-serving but it appears the producer made a good faith effort to to determine young Mr Corrigan’s actual age (which is a good argument IMHO in favor of child pornography not being a strict liability offense; should everyone who relied on Corrigan’s alleged forgeries and bought a video in the belief that he was of legal age be convicted of possession?). If Corrigan did forge or alter three different documents, he could be looking at up to 45 years in prison, if I’m reading the statute correctly.
Depending on what kind of proof of age documents Corrigann used the studio might be off the hook, at least criminally. Traci Lords got the US government to issue her a passport listing her age as 21 when she was 16. The Justice department had to drop all charges since the defendants could hide behind the government’s error.
Even if it’s legal to produce porn, this contract is still unenforceable.
Think about it: it’s legal to film consensual sex, but it’s not legal to inflict nonconsensual sex upon another person. Once Corrigan has rescinded his consent, the contracted act is illegal, and thereby unenforceable.
It’s a catch-22 for the producer: enforcing it makes it unenforceable.
