|
Post by slappy on Sept 3, 2014 17:53:15 GMT -5
If Punk worked all his contracted dates then him leaving is not a breach of contract. He simply refused to work more days than he was contracted for which is in his right.
Yes, his contract was until July but if the number of dates in his contract were used up by the time he left he didn't have to work another day.
This isn't like WWE releasing a DVD with him on it. This is them producing something new with him in it. They owe him money.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremiah on Sept 3, 2014 17:55:24 GMT -5
its ok 2k can just have us download a patch where over his image it will just say superstar walked out not useable and his gts can be changed to w.a.q whined and quit in the move section
|
|
|
Post by marino13 on Sept 3, 2014 17:56:35 GMT -5
I don't pay WWE's bills & I don't know CM Punk personally, so I don't give a **** anymore.
|
|
|
Post by hbkbigdaddycool on Sept 3, 2014 17:56:46 GMT -5
If Punk worked all his contracted dates then him leaving is not a breach of contract. He simply refused to work more days than he was contracted for which is in his right. Yes, his contract was until July but if the number of dates in his contract were used up by the time he left he didn't have to work another day. This isn't like WWE releasing a DVD with him on it. This is them producing something new with him in it. They owe him money. He wasn't signed to the WWE to fulfill so many contracted dates. He was signed until July 2014. He left in January, thus breaking that contract. Punk is a little crybaby. How anyone can be a fan of his now is remarkable. He can stay away from the business forever. I won't miss him. And he can take his annoying b***h of a wife too, because she annoys the hell out of me on Raw. She is just trying to be CM Punk now, she has totally lost any character of herself in what made AJ Lee. She may as well just be AJ Punk now.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Sept 28, 2024 5:09:14 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 3, 2014 17:58:51 GMT -5
not taking sides but this will sure be interesting to see play out.
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Sept 3, 2014 18:01:17 GMT -5
If Punk worked all his contracted dates then him leaving is not a breach of contract. He simply refused to work more days than he was contracted for which is in his right. Yes, his contract was until July but if the number of dates in his contract were used up by the time he left he didn't have to work another day. This isn't like WWE releasing a DVD with him on it. This is them producing something new with him in it. They owe him money. He wasn't signed to the WWE to fulfill so many contracted dates. He was signed until July 2014. He left in January, thus breaking that contract. Every WWE contract has a certain amount of dates in it. Numerous wrestlers have confirmed that. They blew through his contracted dates and Punk didn't want to keep going so he left. He could have stayed and worked through July but those would have been extra dates.
|
|
facemeat
Main Eventer
Joined on: Jul 24, 2011 0:38:10 GMT -5
Posts: 2,891
|
Post by facemeat on Sept 3, 2014 18:01:09 GMT -5
Assuming this is true, I hope he loses millions in the lawsuit. I enjoyed his work in WWE, but as a person he seems like a real assh*le. This is just stupidity, and he deserves whatever comes from it.
|
|
|
Post by HHH316 on Sept 3, 2014 18:02:26 GMT -5
Well, this isn't going to go over well.
|
|
|
Post by v/\v on Sept 3, 2014 18:03:10 GMT -5
Get the security and get the sand out of his VAGINA!!!!!!
|
|
|
Post by BCizzle on Sept 3, 2014 18:06:16 GMT -5
So many of you guys are talking out of your asses.
|
|
|
Post by kingnothing ~ Hardwired... on Sept 3, 2014 18:09:37 GMT -5
He wasn't signed to the WWE to fulfill so many contracted dates. He was signed until July 2014. He left in January, thus breaking that contract. Every WWE contract has a certain amount of dates in it. Numerous wrestlers have confirmed that. They blew through his contracted dates and Punk didn't want to keep going so he left. He could have stayed and worked through July but those would have been extra dates. Hang on: When was this info released? I try to stay on top of the rumors and facts but I never heard he worked all his dates.
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Sept 3, 2014 18:12:23 GMT -5
Every WWE contract has a certain amount of dates in it. Numerous wrestlers have confirmed that. They blew through his contracted dates and Punk didn't want to keep going so he left. He could have stayed and worked through July but those would have been extra dates. Hang on: When was this info released? I try to stay on top of the rumors and facts but I never heard he worked all his dates. It's what I'm reading somewhere else that is having this discussion. That Punk worked his dates and he could freely leave.
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Sept 3, 2014 18:12:55 GMT -5
And Punk owns the name 'CM Punk' so I think WWE could get in trouble for using it when they don't own it.
|
|
|
Post by Jaz on Sept 3, 2014 18:32:12 GMT -5
What an ungrateful douche.
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Sept 3, 2014 18:35:19 GMT -5
What an ungrateful douche. 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?
|
|
|
Post by RybackV1 on Sept 3, 2014 18:35:55 GMT -5
Sending a 22 page letter is not Suing
|
|
|
Post by RybackV1 on Sept 3, 2014 18:37:08 GMT -5
What an ungrateful douche. 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.
|
|
|
Post by BrIaNMeRcY on Sept 3, 2014 18:37:10 GMT -5
If Punk worked all his contracted dates then him leaving is not a breach of contract. He simply refused to work more days than he was contracted for which is in his right. Yes, his contract was until July but if the number of dates in his contract were used up by the time he left he didn't have to work another day. This isn't like WWE releasing a DVD with him on it. This is them producing something new with him in it. They owe him money. The WWE doesn't owe CM Punk anything. Once you breach your contract, you are pretty much **** out of luck when it comes to getting paid. Did Steve Austin make a stink about not getting paid after he walked out in 2002? Nope, not at all. Austin swallowed his pride, went back to work and had his last ever match at WrestleMania XIX. The more CM Punk comes off like this, the more he is destroying the legacy he built upon for himself. I told my brother his a few times that years down the road, Daniel Bryan's legacy will surpass CM Punk's legacy. I can see the WWE's legal team hard at work, fighting off a lame duck suit, and becoming victorious in the end.
|
|
|
Post by The Natural Eddy Valintino on Sept 3, 2014 18:37:16 GMT -5
Well, this could be bad for both parties. I could see WWE counter suing Punk for breach of contract, but then again if I owned WWE, I would have sued him a long time ago for breaching his contract. I honestly believe he has every right to royalties since he owns the name "CM Punk", but at the same time, he's doing things the wrong way yet again. He walked out of the WWE the wrong way and now he's doing this lawsuit the wrong way. If I were Punk, I would have just called up Vince or however's in charge of that department for royalties and say "Hey, I know I left the company the wrong way, but I still believe that as long as I own the copyright of CM Punk, I should get my part of the royalties for all this merchandise and others stuff you're making money out of". CM Punk should just look at what happened with Austin after he left and how much Austin regretted leaving at the end and how much money he lost. I'm not sure if Austin tried suing WWE for that and WWE won, but if it happened, WWE will win this case as well.
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Sept 3, 2014 18:38:31 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. So that gives the company the right to use his likeness and create new things without compensating him? And we do not know that he's in breach of his contract. If he worked all his contracted dates then there is no breach.
|
|