Qui-Gonzalez
Master Member
LOL. I thought it was done to save his/her own skin.
AA case begins
- Thread starter Jumpin Jax
- Start date
Jumpin Jax
Sr Member
::going over the usual BS list::
Mhmm.
Ok fact check, once again: LFL put TE's spuds on the oven and said talk or else, the other way around is an absolute lie. So yes, whoever says that is an absolute liar.
For all the money criticism there were sure a lot of customers, so Matt must have been doing something right.
Invite him back if you want to start slamming, or you're being a coc....you know:lol
Mhmm.
Ok fact check, once again: LFL put TE's spuds on the oven and said talk or else, the other way around is an absolute lie. So yes, whoever says that is an absolute liar.
For all the money criticism there were sure a lot of customers, so Matt must have been doing something right.
Invite him back if you want to start slamming, or you're being a coc....you know:lol
defstartrooper
Sr Member
You're the one that's mentioned his name so technically that makes you the CoC :lol
Qui-Gonzalez
Master Member
He does still have a point. LFL could have just pulled this person in and said "Look, help us nail this guy to the wall, or you will be a pauper for the rest of your days". I don't know a person here who would have gone against it.
chris08234
Well-Known Member
I wonder what this case would be like if Star Wars had been a flop.
defstartrooper
Sr Member
Wouldn't be a case because there wouldn't be a market
Qui-Gonzalez
Master Member
Oh come on, look at the props from flops some people here collect.
defstartrooper
Sr Member
Yeah on a small scale i don't know of any business that has made a success of selling such items
Star Wars Helmets
Sr Member
Around the same time didnt Lucasfilm also give him access to the Archives?
During which he took "tons of photo's" - which he was trying to sell on various boards for several hundreds of dollars a set?
Maybe we have a different meaning for "Talk or else".
Cheers
Jez
DARKSIDE72
Sr Member
I guess anyone who has ever been hired to develop a prop in any fashion for a film has some "intellectual" rights to "said" item...:lol This is the dumbest fuc*ing arguement I've ever heard. There is no grey area, if you want to legally produce a prop, you have to obtain the licence.
I can't wait to finally see AA burn for his stupidity and lies.
Bye Bye... AA
I can't wait to finally see AA burn for his stupidity and lies.
Bye Bye... AA
Couldn't have said it better Jez. Really sounds like they stuck it to him... especially the way he talks now as if he has LFL at his beck and call and can bring down the fire from them at his whim.... yeah.. sounds like they REALLY beat an admission out of him and he barely escaped with his life... Still... was a nice attempt at a spin JJ. Thanks for playing.
Last edited:
defstartrooper
Sr Member
I guess anyone who has ever been hired to develop a prop in any fashion for a film has some "intellectual" rights to "said" item...:lol This is the dumbest fuc*ing arguement I've ever heard. There is no grey area, if you want to legally produce a prop, you have to obtain the licence.
I can't wait to finally see AA burn for his stupidity and lies.
Bye Bye... AA
Funnily enough courts don't take moral arguements into consideration they deal with facts.
AA claims he designed the stormtrooper helmets among other things and there was no contract with LFL, He just sold the final items to LFL.
That's the gist of his case, he designed and produced items and sold them to LFL and with no contract in place those designs remain his property, no grey area there from his point of view he sold his work not his design.
LFL claim that a team of people working for them designed the stormtrooper Ralph McQuarrie among them and AA produced the helmets and armour based on those designs and they own the rights to those designs.
Now talking of grey areas they say they had an " implied contract " with AA, i think the judge will laugh at that you can't have an implied contract not in a legal sense anyway.
I seriously wonder if LFL has any idea about him...and how much of a fool they look for using him as an expert witness...
I would imagine they just don't care. In the overall scheme of things he was just a pawn they were able to manipulate for their purposes and all they had to do was let him take a few pics for payment. The people who matter and who read his statements won't know anything about him and will just take LFL's word that he is an authority... they won't know the truth nor will it ever cross their minds that there might be other motivations behind what was said.... "Justice" will just blindly barrel forward.
You can have an "implied contract". They are called oral contracts and in certain situations are just as binding as written ones. Behaviour with intent, spoken word, patterns of behaviour can all combine to form and implied agreement or contract that courts will find binding. For example, courts have ruled that the act of giving a person an engagement ring and them saying yes creates a binding oral contract of marriage. In the event the spouse that receives the ring fails to follow through on the marriage, the courts can and have forced that person to return the ring for failure to honor the oral contract.
Last edited:
Mr. No Stripes
Sr Member
tis true, but its also harder to prove oral contracts, and I believe every contract dealing with $500 or more worth of property has to be in writing. That's US law though.
Although... didn't he sell the suits for like $70 each?
But there's no ring here. And isn't it the case that marriage is final through signing of a written contract by both parties? But that's OT sorry.
Under UK law the contract has to be written.
defstartrooper
Sr Member
Yes but we are talking about a British court of law here not Judge Judy if there's nothing in writing there is no contract.
Def, your snarky Judge Judy aside, I co-own a law firm that does a fair amount of IP/copy/trade rights cases in the US and a decent amount of Int'l ones as well. My attorneys are quite versed in both US and UK laws on this kind of stuff. Not sure of your bona fides but gotta say, your knowledge based on comments thus far appears limited.
The UK law does acknowledge oral contracts with regards to work product. If you doubt me I point you to the website of a UK solicitor firm that addresses this very issue. http://www.gillhams.com/articles/325.cfm
Here is the pertinent line for thus to busy/lazy to go read it...
"Both verbal contracts and written contracts are equally legally binding contracts, subject to the existence of the usual requirements for formation of a contract."
So...anywhooo, nice try....
The UK law does acknowledge oral contracts with regards to work product. If you doubt me I point you to the website of a UK solicitor firm that addresses this very issue. http://www.gillhams.com/articles/325.cfm
Here is the pertinent line for thus to busy/lazy to go read it...
"Both verbal contracts and written contracts are equally legally binding contracts, subject to the existence of the usual requirements for formation of a contract."
So...anywhooo, nice try....
Last edited:
gonk27
Sr Member
.. Yes, but -
"..subject to the existence of the usual requirements for formation of a contract"
Isn't AA's entire case centered around the belief that these didn't exist due to the manner in which he got involved?? :confused
Last edited by a moderator:
