A legal question... Options

[Existentialist]

I've never been involved in a lawsuit, nor have I witnessed the trial for one before. Will Ed have to wear an orange jumpsuit and shackles for the duration of the trial? To me, it seems like a real possibility, but I honestly don't know. What do you guys think the odds are on that? 5 to 1? I don't know.

[Pokey]

I've never been involved in a lawsuit, nor have I witnessed the trial for one before. Will Ed have to wear an orange jumpsuit and shackles for the duration of the trial? To me, it seems like a real possibility, but I honestly don't know. What do you guys think the odds are on that? 5 to 1? I don't know.

I'm pretty sure he'll be found liable to pay back money, however he has a back up plan for this. Instead of paying back CCP the money he'll offer them 1 free 5min personal phone call with him to the value of the money that he owes them (this is on speaker phone so they can all talk to him, not 3 individual phone calls, that would be at too much of a cost to Ed). It's basically as good as him paying them back!

[Bremang]

I'm pretty sure he'll be found liable to pay back money,

I wouldn't bet on it. Ed is saying the statute of limitations has run and CCP have waived their right to pursue action through their course of dealing. Either of these, if true, would preclude any breach at this point. If someone would just check the court records we might have a better clue as to the outcome. Also, there seems to be an issue in regards to songwriting. I don't foresee who would have the advantage with that.

This post has been edited by Bremang: Apr 6 2011, 12:46 pm

[PurdueSteve]

I wouldn't bet on it. Ed is saying the statute of limitations has run and CCP have waived their right to pursue action through their course of dealing. Either of these, if true, would preclude any breach at this point. If someone would just check the court records we might have a better clue as to the outcome. Also, there seems to be an issue in regards to songwriting. I don't foresee who would have the advantage with that.

I don't know what the statue of limitations (SOL) is for this case, but I do know that his actions could be deemed a repetitive breach of contract. For example:

Let's say you and I have a contract where we share rights to a work of art. You, nor I, can do anything with the art unless both agree. Let's also say that the SOL in the state for this particular type of contract is 5 years.

Now, 6 years ago I violated the contract and signed a deal with a third party to use the work of art without your permission. However, this arrangement, where I've breached our contract, has been using the work of art 6 years ago, 5 years ago, 4 years all the way up till last month.

Sure the initial breach has had the SOL run out, but actions since the initial breach have been in continuance of that initial breach and any under 5 years would fall within SOL.

I know I'm not crazy wherein I've seen cases like that.