(05-04-2010 09:55 )elitetvonline Wrote: Just seen all of this and must say I am shocked at the unprofessional discussion of peoples personal business on the forum but hey!
I can't let that pass. None of us in this discussion claims any professional status and the only unprofessional conduct in this whole affair has come from the two major players involved:
Bluebird for getting Anna to sign an ambiguous contract and Elite for going ahead with the launch of
annalovatoonline,com in the full knowledge that much of the promised content will now not be forthcoming.
(06-04-2010 07:28 )Winston Wolfe Wrote: There are generally no rules governing what may be acceptable terms and conditions, but other law, particularly "competition law", might be relevant to contract agreements like this.
Hope this helps...
I've waited a bit before making any comment directly relating to the legal position as I'm no expert on contract law. However, my partner is - it's the very essence of her job. She's been away over Easter so I couldn't get her opinion until last night.
Basically, ANY contract can be contested, but chances of success will be very dependent upon what exactly is disputed. There is obviously a strong case if the contract contains wording which could be misconstrued by either party. We don't know the precise wording of the document in question here but it seems to me that there's plenty of opportunity for misunderstanding and we already know of at least one instance.
Since it's conception,
annalovatoonline,com has been referred to by all and sundry, including Anna herself as Anna's "own site". It would therefore be perfectly reasonable for Anna, and quite possibly any legal advisor she might have, to assume that any reference in the contract to her "own site" meant
annalovatoonline.com, unless it was specifically stated that this was not so. Also, there's no other site in existence to which it might refer. We know from Bluebird's own words that Anna didn't understand the real implications of that wording.
It's been suggested elsewhere that Bluebird might have been under the impression that
annalovatoonline.com was actually exclusively owned by Anna, although that would indicate that someone who is allegedly a lawyer had been breathtakingly incompetent with his research. If true it would indicate a flaw in the initial drawing up of the contract, let alone any subsequent interpretation.
There is also the possibility that the reference to Anna's "own site" might have been used in the full knowledge, indeed hope, that it might be misconstrued, which is the most unpleasant aspect of all. In this respect I think this quote tells us plenty (my bold emphasis):
(05-04-2010 01:54 )BLUEBIRD OFFICIAL Wrote: She confused a revenue sharing arrangement with actual site ownership. Fair enough - she's a hot blonde not a lawyer.
What we don't know, of course, is what Anna's attitude would have been if she had fully understood the implications before signing. The financial benefits might have been so good that she would have signed anyway.
One benefit from all of this as that we have all gained some insight into how two of the major players in the field think:
One of them (Elite) thinks that "the girls don't matter".
(Edit: Jamie has denied saying this and I therefore have to accept that it's only hearsay.)
The other (Bluebird) thinks that Anna is just "a hot blonde".
Thanks guys, we get the picture.
Edited for typos.