havoc7179
Main Eventer
What is this?
Joined on: Oct 16, 2012 9:11:18 GMT -5
Posts: 4,189
|
Post by havoc7179 on Sept 5, 2014 10:56:52 GMT -5
I like Punk, but seriously? You walk out on a company you have a contract with, and you forfeit rights to any money after that. At least that's the way one would think legal contracts work. Except no. Any monies owed to him originally before any breach of contract would still need to be paid. He would forfeit any entitlement to future monies though. So, if WWE 2k15 was already licensed and contracted for while he was still a part of the company, that may constitute a final product that the Court would consider earned money.
|
|
havoc7179
Main Eventer
What is this?
Joined on: Oct 16, 2012 9:11:18 GMT -5
Posts: 4,189
|
Post by havoc7179 on Sept 5, 2014 11:01:36 GMT -5
I really don't understand why people keep saying that. They are using the name and likeness of someone not under contract. That person wants to be paid for it. What's wrong with that? Because that person is currently in BREACH of his contract. Making any of his little whiny grievances null and void. You are still entitled to any monies owed. It would be unjust enrichment on WWE's part to withhold already earned funds just because of a breach. It would be similar to you working a job, and quitting before pay day. The employer would be liable for any monies owed to you even though you breached. Further, this could be under a separate rider or a separate contract. If a rider, then the best theory he has without knowing more of the facts, is that this was earned money. If a separate contract, then he could breach his employment contract until the cows come home, and that would not impact this gaming contract. Maybe, just maybe, you should stop commenting about the frivolous nature of the lawsuit until you either A) know the facts or B) are an attorney.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Jun 30, 2024 1:35:49 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 5, 2014 11:16:28 GMT -5
Because that person is currently in BREACH of his contract. Making any of his little whiny grievances null and void. You are still entitled to any monies owed. It would be unjust enrichment on WWE's part to withhold already earned funds just because of a breach. It would be similar to you working a job, and quitting before pay day. The employer would be liable for any monies owed to you even though you breached. Further, this could be under a separate rider or a separate contract. If a rider, then the best theory he has without knowing more of the facts, is that this was earned money. If a separate contract, then he could breach his employment contract until the cows come home, and that would not impact this gaming contract. Maybe, just maybe, you should stop commenting about the frivolous nature of the lawsuit until you either A) know the facts or B) are an attorney. Sounds like you're doing a lot of speculating there, buddy. Maybe, just maybe, you should stop commenting about the frivolous nature of the lawsuit until you either A) know the facts or B) are an attorney.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Jun 30, 2024 1:35:49 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 5, 2014 11:33:23 GMT -5
Ok its time to lock this. we know next to nothing about this situation and theres a lot of Amateur law school lectures being thrown down in here.
Things have been going around in circles for several pages now so best to wrap it up wile its still civil.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Jun 30, 2024 1:35:49 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 5, 2014 11:34:47 GMT -5
Nooo
|
|
havoc7179
Main Eventer
What is this?
Joined on: Oct 16, 2012 9:11:18 GMT -5
Posts: 4,189
|
Post by havoc7179 on Sept 5, 2014 11:40:51 GMT -5
You are still entitled to any monies owed. It would be unjust enrichment on WWE's part to withhold already earned funds just because of a breach. It would be similar to you working a job, and quitting before pay day. The employer would be liable for any monies owed to you even though you breached. Further, this could be under a separate rider or a separate contract. If a rider, then the best theory he has without knowing more of the facts, is that this was earned money. If a separate contract, then he could breach his employment contract until the cows come home, and that would not impact this gaming contract. Maybe, just maybe, you should stop commenting about the frivolous nature of the lawsuit until you either A) know the facts or B) are an attorney. Sounds like you're doing a lot of speculating there, buddy. Maybe, just maybe, you should stop commenting about the frivolous nature of the lawsuit until you either A) know the facts or B) are an attorney. Member of the FLorida Bar since 2009. So I meet criteria B.
|
|