8701girl;3836773 said:
didnt KF say that michael kept saying he didnt wanna do 50 shows? or was it someone else who said that? im sure someone did say that
I actually talked to multiple fans that was there. They said Michael complained about how close the shows were (which was changed later I believe) and also said to them he didn't want to do 50 shows
in the same place. so there's a disagreement here. Some will say Michael did not want to do 50 shows, some will say he did not want to do 50 shows in UK.
It's no secret now that there was multiple offers from other countries. I have seen an email from Japan asking for 3 shows. AEG also said that they wanted Michael to do more shows and possibly turn this into a world tour. But perhaps Michael wanted to do 50 shows total all around the world - not in UK and that's what he complained about.
I don't see why Jacksons focus on the number of shows, the more shows the more damages.
LastTear;3836910 said:
Exactly, so Michael was quite within his rights to refuse the extra shows, even after they were announced with no threat of being sued.
I agree with other members that it could be a PR disaster if Michael cancelled the shows but if the contract said it needed to be in writing , legally he could have easily walked away from the extra 19 shows.
Bubs;3836929 said:
AEG exec accuses Michael Jackson's mom, kids of extortion
Take a wild guess which one is Alan Dukes :smilerolleyes:
of course he added the kids when they weren't even brought up in questioning. He's working so hard to portray big bad AEG making accusations about Michael's poor old grieving mother and minor orphaned children. Jackson lawyers even used such wording on their motions referring to the plaintiffs like "grieving mother & minor children". They are plaintiffs in this case, in a case that themselves started. Also the kids are minors and Katherine is representing them.
bouee;3837045 said:
Hiring is clear, Murray was hired as an independent contractor. That is not an issue.
I disagree, hiring is still 50-50. The jury still needs to decide if Murray was hired because there was an implied /oral contract or if Murray wasn't hired because there was no written / signed / executed contract.
Judge clearly wrote this was a decision to the jury. Judge only determined
if Murray was hired, he would have been an independent contractor and not an employee.
Both sides are equally annoying to me. When Gongaware testified, Putnam spent a lot of time asking questions that PG had already answered clearly.
in my experience that's pretty common if you want the person to clarify an answer or add more to it. For example a lawyer can ask a question saying "answer yes or no" and then the defense lawyer can ask the same question asking "you said yes, why explain?".
Vici;3837062 said:
"Another document that defense attorney Marvin Putnam showed Gongaware was Lou Ferrigno’s contract. Ferrigno’s three-page contract designated him as an independent contractor. It was signed by AEG accounting exec Julie Hollander. (AP) Putnam showed independent contract agreement with Ferrigno fully executed. Julie Hollander signed on behalf of AEG effective April 27, 2009. (ABC7)
Then it was Brian Panish's turn again. He said there isn't a date on the contract showing when Julie Hollander signed Ferrigno's agreement. (ABC7) Panish questioned Gongaware about whether Ferrigno’s contract may have been signed after Jackson’s death."
I dont get it. Putnam showed the contract with the date on it, but Panish says there isnt a date on the contract. Huh?
Korgnex;3837142 said:
Nah, you're misunderstanding some legal terms here. Read carefully: "Julie Hollander signed on behalf of AEG effective April 27, 2009." <-- this is NOT the date it was signed by Julie Hollander, it is the date the contract's parties' agreement became valid (which could be retroactive in case services were performed prior to signing).
That's what Panish pointed out (as there's no date in this regard).
Korgnex is right. There's nothing to show when the contract was signed but it was effective April 27.
In other words, the contract could have been signed on April 27 and became effective the same day or it could have been signed let's say July 2009 and say it became effective April 27 to cover the period Ferrigno worked for Michael.
CherubimII;3837074 said:
Could AEG representatives be reading this board as they prepare their defense?
I know you asked this seriously but don't worry. They are highly trained lawyers in a big law firm. They don't need to read fan forums for strategy.
thanks.