ScarJo Files Suit Against Disney

[beatboks]

If she signed a bad contract, it’s totally her and her attorneys fault.

It's not her fault if the contract she signed wasn't honoured by the other participant. From what I've heard her contract stated that her remuneration was based on purely box office receipts with a stipulation of having a wide theatrical release. Generally this is considered to mean exclusive to studios but it could be defined as being released to a significant amount of studios.


Johanson has asked for a jury trial presumably because a jury would choose the accepted definition where a judge is more likely to accept a purer definition. If they do accept the generally accepted meaning then not sticking to purely cinema without renegotiating the contract they breached it. In short it sounds to me like her attorney made a decent contract that protected her from being cheated from a split release and instead it was the Disney attorneys who made a mistake (banking on being able to sell a different definition)

[WebLurker]

It's not her fault if the contract she signed wasn't honoured by the other participant. From what I've heard her contract stated that her remuneration was based on purely box office receipts with a stipulation of having a wide theatrical release. Generally this is considered to mean exclusive to studios but it could be defined as being released to a significant amount of studios.


Johanson has asked for a jury trial presumably because a jury would choose the accepted definition where a judge is more likely to accept a purer definition. If they do accept the generally accepted meaning then not sticking to purely cinema without renegotiating the contract they breached it. In short it sounds to me like her attorney made a decent contract that protected her from being cheated from a split release and instead it was the Disney attorneys who made a mistake (banking on being able to sell a different definition)

So, you think if it goes to trial, the verdict will hang on the spirit of the contract vs the letter of it?

[Powerboy]

So, you think if it goes to trial, the verdict will hang on the spirit of the contract vs the letter of it?

It sounds like her reason for going with a jury rather than just a trial before a judge might be because she or her lawyers hope a jury will be more likely to go with the spirit of the contract.

As someone already said, it's just a millionaire suing a billionaire company, both already having money to burn we can only imagine.

[inisideguy]

There isn't a "spirit" of a contract. There is a contract. All these people on ScarJos side, haven't explained why no other actor has sued. Either she has a unique contract, or they are scared. Or maybe they don't feel like they got ripped off. If Disney has a case they are gonna take her to court. They don't pay people for crap lawsuits to make it disappear. Both sides have just walked into something that is ridiculous and sad.

[green_garnish]

There isn't a "spirit" of a contract. There is a contract. All these people on ScarJos side, haven't explained why no other actor has sued. Either she has a unique contract, or they are scared. Or maybe they don't feel like they got ripped off. If Disney has a case they are gonna take her to court. They don't pay people for crap lawsuits to make it disappear. Both sides have just walked into something that is ridiculous and sad.

Yes, you are not likely to get far arguing the spirit of the contract. There is ample precedent for the intent behind how the contract is worded, however. You can potentially argue that the contract was worded in such a way as to deceive, for example. Or that there was a mutual understanding of the meaning of a phase among the parties involved, and one or more parties subsequently changed their interpretation of the meaning of the phrase to benefit themselves.

[JBatmanFan05]

Yes, you are not likely to get far arguing the spirit of the contract. There is ample precedent for the intent behind how the contract is worded, however. You can potentially argue that the contract was worded in such a way as to deceive, for example. Or that there was a mutual understanding of the meaning of a phase among the parties involved, and one or both parties subsequently changed their interpretation of the meaning of the phrase to benefit themselves.

Yes, the big hurdle for ScarJo's attorneys will be advancing things to the point where that evidence gets discovered and gets to a judge/jury. Getting beyond the four corners of the contract.

[Scott Taylor]

Yes, you are not likely to get far arguing the spirit of the contract. There is ample precedent for the intent behind how the contract is worded, however. You can potentially argue that the contract was worded in such a way as to deceive, for example. Or that there was a mutual understanding of the meaning of a phase among the parties involved, and one or more parties subsequently changed their interpretation of the meaning of the phrase to benefit themselves.

Yep, it becomes all about precedent, both in contractual intent and in how other movie stars have been compensated who had similar contracts. Seems like its also going to be about COVID and whether or not that introduces a factor that should have bearing on the reading of the contract and its stipulations. Not sure how you find precedent to examine for something similar to COVID, though. In contractual terms, I would think COVID would be considered an "Act of God."

[Powerboy]

Yep, it becomes all about precedent, both in contractual intent and in how other movie stars have been compensated who had similar contracts. Seems like its also going to be about COVID and whether or not that introduces a factor that should have bearing on the reading of the contract and its stipulations. Not sure how you find precedent to examine for something similar to COVID, though. In contractual terms, I would think COVID would be considered an "Act of God."

There is precedent for that going way back. although it was more arbitration than lawsuit, Chuck Connors left a show and got paid for all the episodes he was slated for but was not in because the producers misrepresented- on a purely verbal level- what his character was going to be.

[inisideguy]

Yep, it becomes all about precedent, both in contractual intent and in how other movie stars have been compensated who had similar contracts. Seems like its also going to be about COVID and whether or not that introduces a factor that should have bearing on the reading of the contract and its stipulations. Not sure how you find precedent to examine for something similar to COVID, though. In contractual terms, I would think COVID would be considered an "Act of God."

Of course its going to be about Coivd. Scarjo and her lawyers are going to have to try and prove that Disney did this out of spite to rip her off. I mean thats a reach to say the least. Now "if" Disney didn't want to sit down with her about streaming revenue after the fact well thats a whole different story. That has nothing to do with whether they released it in a wide release or not. I mean if Disney said hey Scarjo you are not getting any streaming cause well haha to bad then Scarjo has a right to be pissed. But I don't think that has a darn thing to do with with any contract she signed. Personally do people actually think Disney just said sorry girl no streaming revenue for you? I mean possibly I guess. But man I don't know. Like I said no one else is suing.

[green_garnish]

Of course its going to be about Coivd. Scarjo and her lawyers are going to have to try and prove that Disney did this out of spite to rip her off. I mean thats a reach to say the least. Now "if" Disney didn't want to sit down with her about streaming revenue after the fact well thats a whole different story. That has nothing to do with whether they released it in a wide release or not. I mean if Disney said hey Scarjo you are not getting any streaming cause well haha to bad then Scarjo has a right to be pissed. But I don't think that has a darn thing to do with with any contract she signed. Personally do people actually think Disney just said sorry girl no streaming revenue for you? I mean possibly I guess. But man I don't know. Like I said no one else is suing.

"Out of spite" seems misplaced here and has nothing to do with the premise at hand. What was the common perception of "wide release" at the time the contract was signed has everything to do with legal procedure and precedence.

[inisideguy]

"Out of spite" seems misplaced here and has nothing to do with the premise at hand. What was the common perception of "wide release" at the time the contract was signed has everything to do with legal procedure and precedence.

Sure. But how does one defined wide release during a pandemic? To me Disney would have loved to release this like normal and make everyone happy. But that was just not going to happen. If she got screwed on the backend which I am not even sure because like I said literally no one else is suing then she has a right to be pissed. Its not like anyone could have predicted this mess. During normal times Disney would have released this like normal. She would have got paid. Its not normal times. If her lawyers are attempting to argue that this movie should have been released like it was normal times and that Disney had no right to do what they did, then thats a hard case to argue.

I mean they release Raya right to streaming premier plus
They released Soul right to streaming and Luca right to streaming not even premier plus
They released Cruella same day premier plus
They released Jungle cruise same day premier plus.

Now did they screw all of these people? Or just her? Did they offer compensation and these other actors said you know what we will take it right now. And she said yea I aint taking that I want more?

[Panic]

Sure. But how does one defined wide release during a pandemic? To me Disney would have loved to release this like normal and make everyone happy. But that was just not going to happen. If she got screwed on the backend which I am not even sure because like I said literally no one else is suing then she has a right to be pissed. Its not like anyone could have predicted this mess. During normal times Disney would have released this like normal. She would have got paid. Its not normal times. If her lawyers are attempting to argue that this movie should have been released like it was normal times and that Disney had no right to do what they did, then thats a hard case to argue.

I mean they release Raya right to streaming premier plus
They released Soul right to streaming and Luca right to streaming not even premier plus
They released Cruella same day premier plus
They released Jungle cruise same day premier plus.

Now did they screw all of these people? Or just her? Did they offer compensation and these other actors said you know what we will take it right now. And she said yea I aint taking that I want more?

You've been talking like lots of people were signed up for a percentage of the profits, but is that the case? I thought it was mainly the big stars.

[thwhtGuardian]

Sure. But how does one defined wide release during a pandemic? To me Disney would have loved to release this like normal and make everyone happy. But that was just not going to happen. If she got screwed on the backend which I am not even sure because like I said literally no one else is suing then she has a right to be pissed. Its not like anyone could have predicted this mess. During normal times Disney would have released this like normal. She would have got paid. Its not normal times. If her lawyers are attempting to argue that this movie should have been released like it was normal times and that Disney had no right to do what they did, then thats a hard case to argue.

I mean they release Raya right to streaming premier plus
They released Soul right to streaming and Luca right to streaming not even premier plus
They released Cruella same day premier plus
They released Jungle cruise same day premier plus.

Now did they screw all of these people? Or just her? Did they offer compensation and these other actors said you know what we will take it right now. And she said yea I aint taking that I want more?

All Disney had to do was say "Hey, we need to make the best of a bad situation which means releasing this differently. We know you were set to make significantly more, but how does X amount of dollars sound?" and then gone to the tables with her people back and fourth about if X was fair or not. It's what WB did with its talent so it's not some pie in the sky ideal.

[green_garnish]

As for the "act of God" scenario, I'm not sure how much that applies. If a tornado destroys an apartment house, the leases are no longer in effect because the space being leaased no longer exists. There are no alternatives.

With COVID, we've seen both from Disney and other studios that there were several potential responses, and the courts will have to decide if the response Disney made in this specific case violated the contract, or if other, more fair options existed and should have been considered. Making the best of a bad situation doesn't really work if it's only best for one side.

[inisideguy]

You've been talking like lots of people were signed up for a percentage of the profits, but is that the case? I thought it was mainly the big stars.

I mean we don't really know right? Probably just the big stars. But I mean the Rock is a big star. And Emma Stone is a big star.