Talk about a Deal He Couldn't Refuse

Yet another reason to call my insurance agent today:

Agent Sued for $1 Million


Poohba said...

I know there was a story there somewhere - but I was distracted by the photo of Michael Vartan.

Elektra said...

The whole article is "he said", "she said". How will this stand up in court?

Anonymous said...

elektra asked how all of this will stand up in court.

This case will probably be much easier for the judge to evaluate than it is for those of us keeping score at home.

During the pre-trial discovery process, each party will be handing over the information they have--documents, email, notes from phone calls, memoranda, and so forth. They'll also be deposed under oath.

It will become much clearer, to both the parties and the judge, what happened, and when. The judge will be able to compare, on the one hand, what the contractual obligations were, and, on the other, what was done by both the parties to the contract (such as agent and client) and by other significant actors (sources, writers, publishers, etc.).

Termagant 2 said...

Whatever is said in court, unless they back it up with some sort of written agreement, they're both toast.

Not a lawyer, just my $0.02.

Also, what can you expect from someone whose name is Para Scandola? "For Scandal"?


McKoala said...

Were they not a little suspicious when none of the supposed advance was forwarded to them?

The piece underneath is interesting too, not just because she's friends with Michael Vartan, gee he's cute... Sorry, distracted for a moment there. Ahem. Obviously he's not a patch on Mr Clooney, but...

Carter said...

Unfotunately, it's impossible to predict what 12 nominally intelligent people will do once they're in the jury box. Witness the infamous McDonald's hot coffee decision.

Miss Snark -- does this mean I can pitch a non-fiction book to you based on the (extremely) remote possibility of an interview with George Clooney and then sue you when you don't sell it? Do I have to pay you 15% of the damages?

Anonymous said...

Carter mentioned the unpredictability of twelve people sitting on a jury.

True enough, and that's probably why litigants in civil cases sometimes prefer to waive the jury and go with a judge alone.

No doubt there are any number of people who read Miss Snark's blog who are civil litigators in New York by day, and novelists by night, so they can provide the real info on this issue. What factors do the litigants NYC consider in choosing juries vs. judges?

I do know that civil juries are often smaller than criminal juries--six rather than twelve. Sometimes majority rules in civil cases, not unanimity.

I came across a comment that indicates that a jury is available for civil trials in New York only in cases in which the remedy sought by the plaintiff is money. If the writer suing the agent is looking for something in addition to damages in the form of $$$, then he may not even have a jury option.

It makes sense for any Ordinary Person who is suing Big Corporation for injuries sustained to have a jury rather than a judge decide the case. I'm not so sure that a dispute between author and agent is in the same league when it comes to whipping up sympathy among jurors for the poor injured plaintiff.