Toggle navigation
Toggle navigation
Home
DCUM Forums
Nanny Forums
Events
About DCUM
Advertising
Search
Recent Topics
Hottest Topics
FAQs and Guidelines
Privacy Policy
Your current identity is: Anonymous
Login
Preview
Subject:
Forum Index
»
Entertainment and Pop Culture
Reply to "Lively/Baldoni Lawsuit Part 2"
Subject:
Emoticons
More smilies
Text Color:
Default
Dark Red
Red
Orange
Brown
Yellow
Green
Olive
Cyan
Blue
Dark Blue
Violet
White
Black
Font:
Very Small
Small
Normal
Big
Giant
Close Marks
[quote=Anonymous]I also didn't care for how the article was written, but they have hit on an important point about the bonus being in the ALA and not in the initial letter. The author writes "Upon information and belief, Blake was only paid her $1.25M box office bonuses" but that's the whole issue. If Wayfarer did pay her the bonus, that undercuts the argument that the parties weren't acting as if the contract had been signed. And if they didn't pay the bonus, she should have sued for her share of the profits if she believes the contract was in effect. So that seems like a pretty important point towards the MSJ argument on whether a contract existed and I don't recall it being brought up by either side. Maybe it was in the redactions. It's also pretty interesting how the author went through the privilege log and identified the email chains and the various execs on lawyers being added to the chain discussing her bonus. There could be something to this.[/quote]
Options
Disable HTML in this message
Disable BB Code in this message
Disable smilies in this message
Review message
Search
Recent Topics
Hottest Topics
