Victor Mignogna v. Funimation Productions, LLC, et al. (2019) - Vic's lawsuit against Funimation, VAs, and others, for over a million dollars.

Destacado
Garm dijo:
Okay. I had thought that the judges logic was "he was invited back. Therefore no damages were incurred."

Basically if you get the contract back, you don't suffer damages.
Presiona para expandir...
that's absolutely what Chupp said yes but as we established it's also factually incorrect since Vic ended up having to pay for this appearance instead of strictly earning from it
 
MCG_Raven dijo:
that's absolutely what Chupp said yes but as we established it's also factually incorrect since Vic ended up having to pay for this appearance instead of strictly earning from it
Presiona para expandir...
Look, I'm clearly missing something here, so could somebody enlighten me? It is claimed that Vic had a contract, that contract got cancelled because of their defamatory statements, and a new contract was used with different terms. What evidence is provided in the lawsuit other than the claim itself?

The contract attached to the lawsuit was signed in July 2018. All of the false statements of fact and attempts to get contracts cancelled happened in 2019 according to the lawsuit, as far as I can tell. If they just decided to agree it wasn't actually cancelled and use the same contract, where is the written and signed update to the contract altering the terms and showing a loss to Vic? If this contract was cancelled, where is the notice of cancellation in writing and signed, and the new contract showing the different terms in the filing?
 
DinkyCowSow dijo:
Look, I'm clearly missing something here, so could somebody enlighten me? It is claimed that Vic had a contract, that contract got cancelled because of their defamatory statements, and a new contract was used with different terms. What evidence is provided in the lawsuit other than the claim itself?
Presiona para expandir...

The testimony of both parties attesting to the fact that such a contract existed would be enough to establish that one existed at this point in the legal process. The need to produce a contract would only be relevant in this case if the case was a contract dispute and the existence of a contract, or its terms, is what was disputed. In this case, nobody party to the contract disputes its existence, its terms, that it was broken, and that a new contract was negotiated with new terms. Those facts aren't in dispute by the evidence, so all that is necessary for this TCPA issue is to establish the facts that Vic: 1) had a contract, 2) that said contract was terminated by the tortuous actions of the defendants 3) he suffered damages for it. Fact #1 is established by both contracted parties. Fact two is alleged by the plaintiff and confirmed by the other party to the plaintiff's contract who broke said contract. Fact #3 is also shown in the testimony and sworn statements that are now a matter of court record, but Chupp seems to have placed a heavier evidence burden than that required by law.
 
DinkyCowSow dijo:
Look, I'm clearly missing something here, so could somebody enlighten me? It is claimed that Vic had a contract, that contract got cancelled because of their defamatory statements, and a new contract was used with different terms. What evidence is provided in the lawsuit other than the claim itself?

The contract attached to the lawsuit was signed in July 2018. All of the false statements of fact and attempts to get contracts cancelled happened in 2019 according to the lawsuit, as far as I can tell. If they just decided to agree it wasn't actually cancelled and use the same contract, where is the written and signed update to the contract altering the terms and showing a loss to Vic? If this contract was cancelled, where is the notice of cancellation in writing and signed, and the new contract showing the different terms in the filing?
Presiona para expandir...
the fact that Vic WAS cancelled but later got reinvited to Kamehacon is not just evidence but hard PROOF that a new contract existed. Vic and Slatosch both stating that new conditions were applied to it is evidence of those new conditions
 
MCG_Raven dijo:
the fact that Vic WAS cancelled but later got reinvited to Kamehacon is not just evidence but hard PROOF that a new contract existed. Vic and Slatosch both stating that new conditions were applied to it is evidence of those new conditions
Presiona para expandir...
I would disagree. It is also possible that they changed their mind about cancelling it and just decided to let him come back with the original contract. Yet, let's assume this is truly hard proof. It would certainly count as evidence for the claim that they both stated new conditions were applied. I don't think it rises to the level of clear and specific. This would have all been remedied by something as simple as attaching the new contract to the lawsuit. Why was the new contract not attached?

Imagine this from the point of view of a judge. It looks fishy when, the only evidence you have that you were damaged is you saying you were damaged. Attaching both contracts to the lawsuit is so fucking basic that not doing it makes it look like you have hidden something. So the judge can just go, "I have not seen evidence of clear and specific damages."
 
DinkyCowSow dijo:
I would disagree. It is also possible that they changed their mind about cancelling it and just decided to let him come back with the original contract. Yet, let's assume this is truly hard proof. It would certainly count as evidence for the claim that they both stated new conditions were applied. I don't think it rises to the level of clear and specific. This would have all been remedied by something as simple as attaching the new contract to the lawsuit. Why was the new contract not attached?

Imagine this from the point of view of a judge. It looks fishy when, the only evidence you have that you were damaged is you saying you were damaged. Attaching both contracts to the lawsuit is so fucking basic that not doing it makes it look like you have hidden something. So the judge can just go, "I have not seen evidence of clear and specific damages."
Presiona para expandir...
you literally couldn't be reinvited under the exact same contract. The contract is void since one party already breached it.

From the point of view of Chupp Sure it'd look suspicious if only Vic said taht but not anymore when Slatosch LITERALLY says "I breached the contract and only when threatened with a lawsuit against me for commiting an offense i went back on it" He'd be stupid to A) Lie in his affidavit/Declaration and then B) possibly incriminate himself over it anyways
 
DinkyCowSow dijo:
I would disagree. It is also possible that they changed their mind about cancelling it and just decided to let him come back with the original contract. Yet, let's assume this is truly hard proof. It would certainly count as evidence for the claim that they both stated new conditions were applied. I don't think it rises to the level of clear and specific. This would have all been remedied by something as simple as attaching the new contract to the lawsuit. Why was the new contract not attached?

Imagine this from the point of view of a judge. It looks fishy when, the only evidence you have that you were damaged is you saying you were damaged. Attaching both contracts to the lawsuit is so fucking basic that not doing it makes it look like you have hidden something. So the judge can just go, "I have not seen evidence of clear and specific damages."
Presiona para expandir...
Except when dealing with defamation per se, damages are presumed. Just saying "I've been damaged through contracts such as at Kamehacon", even if they did remedy it through a second contract which shouldn't have been required prior to TI, along with the Ron texts would prove that TI, at least with Kamehacon, was committed.
 
Garm dijo:
With the ruling on TI, did Chupp set the precedent that "if you successfully defend yourself from TI, you didn't suffer damages?" That seems like reason enough to overturn the ruling.
Presiona para expandir...

You also can't sue for a car accident that almost happened.

He's wrong because Vic did suffer damages. The contract was breached. The contract that replaced it was materially different, and Vic would have been able to sue over the multiple material breaches, because the original was dead.

DinkyCowSow dijo:
What evidence is provided in the lawsuit other than the claim itself?
Presiona para expandir...

What the fuck else would you need other than a sworn declaration from both parties to the contract and the contract itself? God personally showing up and saying it?
 
PrinceofAllCucks dijo:
Except when dealing with defamation per se, damages are presumed. Just saying "I've been damaged through contracts such as at Kamehacon", even if they did remedy it through a second contract which shouldn't have been required prior to TI, along with the Ron texts would prove that TI, at least with Kamehacon, was committed.
Presiona para expandir...
This is the type of big brained legal analysis that made me want to sign up for this site. I'm going to give you a chance to take this back before I bother responding to it.
 
Garm dijo:
I was finding it odd that KickVic is celebrating a ruling that would be disastrous to allow to stand.
Presiona para expandir...

It would be disastrous for them if you could ruin a man for easily disprovable rumors and out right lies. Yet, they still wish to see Vic ruined and most likely dead. Logic is not their strong suite, since it doesn't depend on feelings.

It is also due to the fact that only "wrong think" people are being targeted. They see any action against these people as acceptable. Vic is christian republican and voted for Trump.
 
DinkyCowSow dijo:
This is the type of big brained legal analysis that made me want to sign up for this site. I'm going to give you a chance to take this back before I bother responding to it.
Presiona para expandir...

It's not analysis, it's a statement of the fucking definition of defamation per se, which is statements so "obviously harmful to the person aggrieved, that no proof of their injurious effect is necessary to make them actionable." Alaniz v. Hoyt, 105 S.W.3d 330, 345 (Tex. App. Corpus Christi 2003).
 
AnOminous dijo:
It's not analysis, it's a statement of the fucking definition of defamation per se, which is statements so "obviously harmful to the person aggrieved, that no proof of their injurious effect is necessary to make them actionable." Alaniz v. Hoyt, 105 S.W.3d 330, 345 (Tex. App. Corpus Christi 2003).
Presiona para expandir...
Alright looks like we have to do this.

DinkyCowSow dijo:
I would disagree. It is also possible that they changed their mind about cancelling it and just decided to let him come back with the original contract. Yet, let's assume this is truly hard proof. It would certainly count as evidence for the claim that they both stated new conditions were applied. I don't think it rises to the level of clear and specific. This would have all been remedied by something as simple as attaching the new contract to the lawsuit. Why was the new contract not attached?

Imagine this from the point of view of a judge. It looks fishy when, the only evidence you have that you were damaged is you saying you were damaged. Attaching both contracts to the lawsuit is so fucking basic that not doing it makes it look like you have hidden something. So the judge can just go, "I have not seen evidence of clear and specific damages."
Presiona para expandir...

Where, in the above quote, is there any hint of defamation being discussed. I am clearly outlining that I don't think the plaintiffs have met the TCPA burden for clear and specific evidence of damages to meet Tortious Interference with Existing Contract. Defamation per se and actual malice are a separate issue. You do NOT assume damages in TIEC. They are separate torts, and have to be proven independently. This is like baby law level 1 stuff. This is why I doubt your ability to provide cogent legal analysis.
 
TexOffender dijo:
Would kind of make suing manjawllo pointless in that case since all her screeching has been countered and hasn't gotten him cancelled anywhere. It has however made others back out.
Presiona para expandir...
She potentially got him cancelled from that NY comic con

DinkyCowSow dijo:
This is the type of big brained legal analysis that made me want to sign up for this site. I'm going to give you a chance to take this back before I bother responding to it.
Presiona para expandir...
Im gonna give you a chance to take this back before you get a metaphorical reaming

Edit: too late
 
ErbBetaPatch dijo:
Vic was damaged by the breach even though he got a new contract with KC because he had to pay a lawyer to possibly pursue litigation for the breach. He only got the new contract because he incurred legal costs.
Presiona para expandir...

He not only had to hire counsel, but if that somehow didn't count, he had to hire security, didn't get to participate in panels, was excluded from the main area and had to have his own, and suffered other material breaches of the contract. Even a dollar in damages would make it actionable, with the actual amount to be determined at trial.

Chupp was simply flat out wrong on this regardless of what subset of evidence he was using.
 
AnOminous dijo:
You also can't sue for a car accident that almost happened.

He's wrong because Vic did suffer damages. The contract was breached. The contract that replaced it was materially different, and Vic would have been able to sue over the multiple material breaches, because the original was dead.
Presiona para expandir...

My point was for Marchi to stay off the hook on appeal an appeals court would have to agree with this precedent it would set.

If LawTwitter had any intellectual honesty, they would explain that Marchi walking away seems to screw over the average person who has only a single TI and not several.

If that makes sense.
 
Destacado
Debes iniciar sesión o registrarte para responder aquí.
Atrás
Top Abajo