ForgotPassword?
Sign Up
Search this Topic:
Forum Jump
Posts: 1754
Mar 21 10 3:40 PM
Registered Member
ReviveTheRedRaven wrote: Oral promises are legally enforceable and far from worthless. When you make an oral promise and then break it, you are liable for breach of contract or, if you never intended to live up to the promise, fraud.Uh-huh. Yeah, I've spent my years in law school too. Getting it in writing is preferred for a reason. They're HARD to enforce.Try to prove what was said in court -- especially an alleged 50 year old oral promise...You can claim anything in an oral promise complaint. But you'd better have a boat load of witnesses who were there and heard every word exactly as the plaintiff says it was said. Waiting some 50 years before filing tends to reduce the number of witnesses (if there were any -- I doubt Goodman would ever say something like the Kirby estate claims in front of others).This case will be settled if and only if Disney decides its not worth the expense/publicity of defending it. It can toss a million at the Kirby's -- much of which will go to their lawyers -- or fight until all the Kirby family has died of old age. Corporations are immortal.One question, why not sue the Goodman estate, if any? If Jack was telling the truth, then Goodman's to blame, not which ever companies bought up Marvel since. Oh, right, there may not be a Goodman estate left and the despised Disney goliath is freaking rich. This is American greed at its "best." Sue for a settlement to make you go away.Kirby could have had the testicles to fight while he and most potential witnesses were still alive. He might have had a case then and I'd love to have seen him on the stand. Granted he did pretty poorly in the other legal case he was involved in, when he was found liable for not paying then DC editor Jack Schiff monies due him by Kirby. Apparently Jack was not the best witness when he testified.
Oral promises are legally enforceable and far from worthless. When you make an oral promise and then break it, you are liable for breach of contract or, if you never intended to live up to the promise, fraud.
21. In the period relevant to this action, Marvel’s Predecessors had a tiny office, very few employees, and fed the printing presses of related entities with comic book material purchased for publication from “freelancers” to which they had little or no obligation. 22. During this period, Kirby was not an employee of any of Marvel’s Predecessors and was not paid a fixed salary or wage by any of them. Marvel’s Predecessors were not financially obligated to Kirby, kept their options open, and thus never committed to any written agreement pursuant to which Kirby was to create his works. Like many others during this difficult economic time, Kirby worked solely on a freelance basis out of his own home, with his own instruments and materials and thereby bore the financial risk of creating his copyrighted
23. The Kirby Works were not created as “works-made-for-hire” for Marvel’s Predecessors. Fourth, the Central District of California is not "Bleak House." Just as the Superman case has progressed, so too will the Kirby lawsuit. Disney cannot "stall" the case indefinitely. That is not how the Federal Courts, and more specifically, this District Court, works.Fifth, it's very obvious why the Goodman Estate wasn't sued. They don't claim the copyrights. Again, this is a suit about copyrights, not about fraud or oral contracts. RRR's opinions about why Kirby did this or didn't do that or what kind of witness he would have made all ignores that this case is based on changes in the law that occurred in the mid-70s and the rights at issue have nothing to do with alleged oral promises. Instead, this case is all about employment status. And it will be Marvel's burden to prove that they had the proper contracts with Kirby which made his art work made for hire. If Marvel can't prove that, then they have a problem.
Share This