Blog Archive

Wednesday, August 25

postheadericon Legal Beagle Eagle Fadeagle


I didn't have a witty name for the post. Sorry. Your favorite lawlyer was tied up... in court so much this week! While Tila's post is a few days old, it's always fun to decipher the crazy rantings, especially when it deals with legal issues. This post comes from Tila's site on August 21st, in her incredibly stupid "Dear Diary" posts. She starts by ranting about a book written for stupid people, a new age style book that tells you to scream into pages. I don't need to, I have pillows. Seriously, if it's all of what she described, it's just a book of random stress releasers you can find for free on the interwebz. Dumbass probably paid like $50 for blank pages to scream into and a whole book of "shut ups".

Moving onto her contract rant:

con·tract [n., adj., and usually for v. 15–17, 21, 22 kon-trakt; otherwise v. kuhn-trakt]
noun
1.
an agreement between two or more parties for the doing or not doing of something specified.
2.
an agreement enforceable by law.
3.
the written form of such an agreement.
4.
the division of law dealing with contracts.

Well in my line of work, almost at least 90% of the time, there’s always a contract that is involved which both parties; client and artist, must sign before an assigned job is booked. Contracts may vary depending on the situation, and when an artist signs a contract to do a job, then the artist is obliged to do the job, otherwise, artist can get sued for breach of contract.

So yay, because her fans have probably not gone far enough in school to know what a contract is yet, she wonderfully posts the definition. Edumacation for dah kiddies. Score! However, in her schooling she says something incomprehensible of "almost at least". It's even worse than double negatives to me. For every "almost" and "at least", I logically tell myself to remove 10% from whatever stat is given. In comes the lawlyer.

An artist or client would not be held to contracts that specifically endanger themselves or their crew. Not a single case in the history of the world, has any company successfully sued for breech of contract based on failure to perform when there is a personal endangerment to the performer, security, or even to fans.

My point is, if I cancel on a booking, I get sued by the booker, but if the booker also signs the contract on their behalf, stating that there will be a certain amount of security for certain things and doesn’t follow through with what is promised by both parties within the contract, any party who breaches the contract can get sued. Just like the other post we did on Brandy getting Sued for breach of contract, etc. Wow, I sound like a lawyer right about now. The whole point of a contract is to protect both parties in an event that something bad occurs. Once both parties agree’s to the final draft of the contract and signs it, then it’s done. Everyone is protected and whomever breaches the contract, gets sued…..I hope you know where I’m getting at, but if not, then that’s ok too because I’m just thinking to myself.

Miss Tila’s Lawyer/Contract law for Dummies 101. :)

There is a difference between canceling and actually showing up with the intention of performing, only to have issues with safety. Additionally, and more importantly, she has admitted (on camera even!) that she was told prior to performing she would still get her paycheck and all would be forgiven. This is not only confirmed by security on site, security with her and ICP themselves, but the actual performer being Tila. This is an enforceable verbal contract clause that would override, based on the situation, any prior contractual obligations. She tosses in Brandy's suit, which has nothing to do with anything really. Most circles call this a red herring argument. (i.e. present something totally irrelevant to the current situation as if it pertains to anything.) I think it classifies as a slippery slope argument as well. (Someone got sued for breech of contract, so therefore, so would I, regardless of circumstance.)

Brandy was contracted to do a job, she did not make an attempt to do the job, did not attempt to contact the contract holders and did not show with any goods on an agreed upon date. Even with all this, because of her *ahem* legal issues, any normal judge will basically take the time stated, tack it onto the end of the contract because of circumstances beyond Brandy's control and set a new date for delivery. One only has to look at the list of plantiffs to see the person filing for breech is money hungry. (Not only the label he was contracted with, not only Brandy, but even her mother!) Even in a solid, iron-clad contract (if there was one) there are still options. All this aside, if Tila's contract stated there'd be security, and in her words, none was provided, ICP had already been in breech of contract by failing to provide adequate and necessary precautions. Since there is video of the entire event, we do know that not only was she told not to go on for her own safety, that she was excused from performance, security came onstage with her and she refused to leave for 15 minutes, only having to be dragged offstage unwillingly - it all becomes moot.

What else glares to me, is that a suit has not been filed yet by neither Tila nor Method Man. My feelings about ICP aside, you don't build a cult following on stupidity. They are not stupid men. They know how to rake the cash in, then protect it. They know their market and their fans and what can happen. Especially after Bubba Sparxx, Ying Yang Twins, etc. I'd even venture personally (without personal knowledge or proof), after the first incident of tossing, they paid the performer a few extra bucks then had lawyers draft up an even more iron-clad agreement that it's at the performer's own risk.

Miss Seola's contract law for Tila, 101.

8 comments:

Madame Toast said...

I have to lol at the fact she is still sporting her ridiculous "bandages" while out and about, and magically the paps show up? seems like she is making a lame attempt at padding her pain and suffering argument, maybe?
But the big red flag waiving above her head letting everyone know she is just full of hot air is exactly this post! her total lack of legal knowledge. I'm not saying she has to know everything there is to know, but if she was truly working with a lawyer and had a legal team to speak of she wouldn't come off as such an ass.
But of course, it all makes for great entertainment.

I think someone mentioned it before but I also have to wonder where her "girl" Lil Kim stands on all this, after all word is she didn't show up to the Gathering, and you would think Lil Kim being a bigger celeb than Tila, ICP would be all over that if they were going to start suing people for breach of contract or not showing up.

Fatty McFatterson said...

This is what I'm talking about!! The Rotspot girls are in the muther fucking house, BITCH! Ha. I really wanted to write about that contract thing, but I don't have no good lolyer skillz and you did this more justice by far!!

I LOVE reading this kind of shit. heh. Good just Seola. you ROCK!

Yeah right said...

I loved the "almost at least" quote also. I even asked her that in the hell it meant. What a vacuous twit.

Ben said...

Wasn't she also late to this event like she is to most things, so she's pretending that she's the perfect client but in reality, if it wasn't an outdoor all night venue, she would not have been able to perform on time.

Tuesday said...

Tila is way out of her league trying to sue anyone over this.

Oral contracts NEVER override a written contract, regardless if it was made before or after. Written contracts always overrule. That is NOT the problem she has though. The problem she has, according to HER own words, are several other things. Forget what ICP says.

One, if you feel that the other party has not reasonably filled their end of the contract, it is your obligation to pull out. Not just sit there and do nothing about it. According to Tila, she says she "completed her set." By completing her set, she is, in essence saying, "there is nothing wrong here."

According to HER, she says there was no security, then later, not enough. If she truly felt that way, then she should not have performed. SHE also states that she was informed by SEVERAL sources, not just one but several, that she should not perform, due to SAFETY reasons. Even if they did go after her, she would have a legitimate defense for not performing.

Second, she is going around defaming them by lying. She says there was no security but, everyone can see she is standing on stage with a copious amount of body guards. The concert promoters clearly went out of their way to provide extra, reasonable security, that allowed for her performing. In order for her to go after them, she has to establish that their security was UNreasonable, or that they acted in an irresponsible manner. That is very hard to prove.

Third, she actually participated in throwing objects back into the audience, and kicking a few bottles. You cannot do that. Defending yourself is one thing but, when you can clearly walk off or run away, as in THIS case, you are obligated to do so.

The only case she may have is if she were to somehow, positively identify the actual individuals that made contact with her face, that actually caused her bleeding.

No matter what, you are obligated to mitigate your damages. If something happens, you must be ACTIVE in protecting yourself or your property from further damage. She did not do this. The very first object that hit her should have been her cue to leave. Not wait until someone carts her off. Instead, she further exasperated the situation by tearing her top off. (Oh, and I have so much more to say about that!)

On a side note, just as a previous entertainer myself, there are so many ways she could have handled herself that would have fulfilled her obligation, had saved face with the audience, AND maybe even garnished some respect and sympathy. Instead, crusty Tila handled herself in the most absurd manner.

She lacks the savvy intellect, talent, and experience, that is required to be a great performer...or, even a good one. Tila sucks.

Seola Uno said...

Tuesday - in this particular situation, the oral addendum would override the written. It's not often you can just claim that, but with several witnesses including the person it was aimed at admitting to the conversation, it lends footing for an argument.

What makes it legitimate is that based upon the written contract, the situation the contract was written for had changed and the organizers who were there found it necessary to give this out to Tila herself. Had nothing changed, no threats, no violence, etc. then 99% of the time no, verbal would not override. Conditions changed, safety was an issue - it was admitted coming out of several mouths and would be enforceable.

However, in this particular instance, as has happened successfully, the oral agreement for payment in exchange for an attempt at services rendered would be admissible. Especially in the case where the one issuing the oral change is the one that would take the loss. Their agreement that the contract on her terms would remain the same, if she did not perform is valid because of situational circumstances that were not foreseen when the written contract was signed.

Rhonda said...

Whoa, them's a lot of big words! That's too much for my little hater brain to manage...my maw and paw never cottoned to that fancy book learnin'

Tuesday said...

Most contracts have a modification clauses to them, that requires things to be put in writing...but, we really don't know what the contract says. Just because either one of them said something verbal, doesn't really mean anything.

I may have missed something here but, I thought ICP said they would have allowed her to keep the money and, Tila said, they wanted her to go out and at least say hi, maybe sing one song. If they are both in AGREEMENT, then, yes the oral contract afterwords could be upheld. It is possible for witnesses to be brought in but, they had to have heard directly the words exchanged. No hearsay and, who's gonna testify for Tila? LOL!

The problem is her behavior. She chose to go forward with her performance. So, her claims that they were negligent in her security will fall on deaf ears because, she is still responsible for mitigating her damages or, preventing them altogether.

Not only does she go on stage, but she continues to perform, throw objects back, tear off her shirt, and she still doesn't walk away. Her problem isn't the contract. Her problem is how she acted. She does not behave like a normal, health person.

I hope she goes to court and they lock her up in a mental hospital.

There was an error in this gadget