Borat is being sued

[Fluffy]

http://www.tmz.com/2006/11/09/borat-lawsuit-high-five

You know, I always wondered if Cohen's humor style would come to this. Not saying the frat boys will win, but I can't say I am surprised.

 

[Timi]

They all need a "Billy Beer"!

 

[Stavrose]

1) The charges of Fraud will be dismissed cause they can't prove all five elements required to have fraud (most obvious being....they weren't induced to enter the contract)

2) If they can prove they were drunk upon entering the contract, they CAN disaffirm cause drunks have limited obligation for Legal Capacity

3) How the hell does negligence come into effect? Those kids are retards. Cohen acted reasonably, he did not induce harm or perform any inherently dangerous actions. He acted as a reasonable person. That alone disproves negligence.

4) False light? They voluntarily drank and acted the way they did. They weren't tricked into drinking or saying the things they said. And for the Statutory version, they were fully responsible for drinking. Cohen didn't buy them the booze or give them drinks.

5) Recession of contract? In order for the contract to be enforcable, the very first thing it needs is legal capacity. The kids were drunk. Legal capacity was not present. Therefore, the contract is not enforceable under the law. And therefore the charges of fraud will be tossed.

 

[Fluffy]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Stavrose @ Nov 10 2006, 11:25 AM) [snapback]132255[/snapback][/center]

1) The charges of Fraud will be dismissed cause they can't prove all five elements required to have fraud (most obvious being....they weren't induced to enter the contract)

2) If they can prove they were drunk upon entering the contract, they CAN disaffirm cause drunks have limited obligation for Legal Capacity

3) How the hell does negligence come into effect? Those kids are retards. Cohen acted reasonably, he did not induce harm or perform any inherently dangerous actions. He acted as a reasonable person. That alone disproves negligence.

4) False light? They voluntarily drank and acted the way they did. They weren't tricked into drinking or saying the things they said. And for the Statutory version, they were fully responsible for drinking. Cohen didn't buy them the booze or give them drinks.

5) Recession of contract? In order for the contract to be enforcable, the very first thing it needs is legal capacity. The kids were drunk. Legal capacity was not present. Therefore, the contract is not enforceable under the law. And therefore the charges of fraud will be tossed.
[/b]

But, if #2 is true then they have to "remove" them from the film or blur their faces or something, no?

 

[Stavrose]

If the court upholds #2, then yes, the court can rule that the faces must be blurred. But by the time this case is over, it will only be able to make a ruling in time for the DVD release...IF that.

 

[Fluffy]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Stavrose @ Nov 10 2006, 11:38 AM) [snapback]132262[/snapback][/center]

If the court upholds #2, then yes, the court can rule that the faces must be blurred. But by the time this case is over, it will only be able to make a ruling in time for the DVD release...IF that.
[/b]

Very true.


Wait...let's say #2 does actaully happen (long shot), and they can't blur the faces till DVD time, does that mean then they can then sue the movie people for mental anguish or some crap like that for what happened when the movie was shown...or is it too late to get restitution for it?

 

[Curse]

I think they will get paid off so the scene remains in the movie

 

[Madrigal]

The part where they claim they signed the contract "after three hours of heavy drinking." Sounds fishy.

Being a producer myself, I would have had them sign right away, then got them drunk afterward. That's Producing 101 stuff right there.

No Hollywood suit would make that mistake.

 

[Huntress]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Curse @ Nov 10 2006, 11:04 AM) [snapback]132270[/snapback][/center]

I think they will get paid off so the scene remains in the movie
[/b]

Which is all the bastards care about...

 

[Stavrose]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Fluffy @ Nov 10 2006, 10:48 AM) [snapback]132266[/snapback][/center]

Very true.


Wait...let's say #2 does actaully happen (long shot), and they can't blur the faces till DVD time, does that mean then they can then sue the movie people for mental anguish or some crap like that for what happened when the movie was shown...or is it too late to get restitution for it? [/b]

Yes. Most of those "pain and suffering" cases usually come after a previous, bigger case. That way the proof is already there and lawyers don't need to recreate a case.