Gizmo_Duck
blathering blatherskite!
Sean basquiat carter already said 30 million can’t hurt him
No it isn’t what you said. If I say 2 x 2 = 4 and you say 1 x 2 = 4, we both got the right answer but your logic of getting there was completely wrong and you just to lucky. The fact is, there isn’t some black letter law that says as a business man you understand every contract in front of you. You have to look at how the contract was drafted and the understanding between the parties. Jay could argue that they had an oral agreement and the written contract was supposed to memorialize that and he didn’t read the fine print. That’s his point about not being a lawyer. He’s arguing that he didn’t read it and he didn’t have legal counsel involved so he was operating from a position of ignorance. Moreover he is arguing that no harm was done because he substantially performed his duties and grew the brand. The point is, this is the very basis of lawyering so no it’s not a clear cut case. By that logic there would be no business man that is ever successful in defending breach of contract claims.
That cologne smells good
The losses didnt occur until 2015-2016… it was profitable in 2013.2012 was still in the middle of the Great Recession.
This isn’t an open/shut case. They would have to prove his lack of involvement led to specific decline in revenue. They can’t pin all of the financial losses on one person. And he has a counter suit for money owed to him. So it may end as a zero sum gain for both parties involved.
No. Its because he failed his obligations to do 3 appearances a year, etc.Basically the suit is trying to claim that Hov's the reason the line (and effectively their business) suffered.
It's a high burden to prove in NYS though. However, it's an expected lawsuit from someone in Hov's capacity.
I have a feeling this'll be settled or denied.
So Jay Z is not even a good businessman?
Let me find out he dont really know how much money he actually has either.
No. Its because he failed his obligations to do 3 appearances a year, etc.
Hard to run ads when the brands face wont promote it.but how does those non appearances equate to lost revenue? How can they prove it?
Yeah, they're called 'women'.
but how does those non appearances equate to lost revenue? How can they prove it?
Act like you aint know you was slumming jt.Uhhh no.
There is a such thing as men fragrances breh.
Shocking hunh?