Posted on 09/18/2005 3:54:53 PM PDT by Hildy
"Strange, but she wasn't ugly enough to prevent her from getting married and having a couple of kids."
Yeah, but you haven't seen the husband yet. He might be even uglier, and the poor kids, what do they look like? Maybe they need an entire family makeover. Meanwhile, I hope this lady wins her case. What they did to her was morally rotten.
Never mind him, I'll swap you my sister, and raise you my dog and the neighbor's cat!
No, we don't know what the contract says. There could very well be an escape clause whach states something to the effect of "(Insert name of production company here) reserves the right to cancel for the following reasons: yadda yadda". I doubt that the family filed the suit on their own--they most likely hired an atty to file for them. If the atty was any good at all, he'd have read the contract before filing and decided what the merits of a possible case would be. The emotional distress, IMO, is just in there as a scare tactic. Intent to cause distress cannot be proven here. Breach is a more definitive argument.
Up next....EXTREME TAKEOVER!!! (I used that joke once before in this thread, but it was apropos here too!)
Actually, others have died. I'd really like to know the back story on the guy who offed himself after he lost on The Contender.
Aha. There is the problem.
I would be willing to bet that there is no merit to this case, because ABC, I'm sure, is completely protected in the contract against these sorts of claims.
However, there is no shortage of attorneys who will file suit against big corporate, even without merit, in the hopes they can get them to settle.
Sadly, I think you are right about this case being settled. That is one of the many reasons our country is so sue happy. Atty's know that the vast majority of companies will settle any case, simply to avoid the expense of fighting it, as well as to avoid any kind of P.R. nightmare.
Getting something for nothing, and sticking it to big corporate. It's the American way.
I think I agree. I think what these make over shows do is cruel. I think the value of "beauty" they promote is harmful -- not to mention the fact that the results are often grotesque. But they exploit the victim's emotions in an unconscionable manner.
I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that you are not familiar with the law in this country.
They will NEVER stop making these shows, no matter what the risks.
As long as people watch them, they will make them.
It's kinda like tabloids. They will make up all sorts of outrageous stuff, and are willing to take the occasional hit when someone sues. But that does not outweigh the profit they make from retards wanting to read them, so we will always have them.
how sad...
Crap like this wasn't even dreamed of in "Network," way back in 1976, and as recently as fifteen years ago I thought "Network" was over the top.
You are naive to think that ABC's attorneys wrote a contract that would leave their clients exposed to a legitimate lawsuit if they dumped someone.
And how can you assume I am wrong, when we have no idea what the contract said?
Of course there are many attorneys who are honorable. My opinion is that the majority of lawsuits such as these are about money, and nothing else.
And again, I must point out that huge corporations have the best attorneys money can buy. I cannot believe that there would be a breach of contract, because no atty at that level of practice would be so negligent as to leave their client at the mercy of a single person.
Yes, I do most certainly believe this is a frivolous lawsuit.
In other words, they put her on TV, said "look at this poor ugly woman, we're going to help her" and then did nothing.
I doubt this woman signed a contract allowing ABC to promote her to America as an ugly duckling in exchange for absolutely nothing. Had ABC backed out earlier, it's a different story. But since they used her image and publicly defamed her, I say she's due something.
SD
Given what is reported about the family, I doubt she is the type who would have had legal advice of her own prior to signing the contract, I doubt she read it herself, and I doubt she is smart enough to have understood it even if she did.
I am looking at this from a completely "legalese" standpoint.
Allow me to be a bit wordy.
ABC has high powered atty's write up a contract for this show. Desperate woman signs contract. After final consultation with the dentist, they find that her recovery time is too lengthy for their timeframe. One of two things would happen, regardless of the Jan 7th show.
1. Producers go to the attys, and ask if there is any legal ramification to letting her go. They look at the contract, say no, and the show lets her go.
2. Same scenario, only the attys say because of this or that, there would be some exposure in letting her go. They give her the surgery anyway, because it's cheaper than being sued, and just don't use her in the show.
If the contract left the show hanging over this, I'd imagine there are at least a couple of attys who will be fired.
If the producers did not seek counsel prior to sending her home, there will be some producers sent packing.
In my experience, prior to a lawsuit being filed, the Plaintiff's atty will send a letter to the Defendant's atty, giving them so many days to respond with a settlement offer, in an effort to avoid the expense of filing. Since this lawsuit was actually filed, I would imagine that ABC thinks they are protected from liability.
That does not mean that this woman will lose, however. As a matter of fact, she will probably win.
There are atty's whose entire practice is based around sniffing these cases out and approaching the individual. I would imagine that is what happened in this case.
Cases like this are worth the gamble. There is the chance that the big corporate will settle, just to make it go away. Plaintiff wins.
If it goes before a judge for summary judgment, the judge can rule based on the contract, he can rule based on intent (which is subjective), or he can rule based on "pain and suffering", which is also subjective. Odds are in the Plaintiffs favor.
If it goes to a jury, they can follow the contract only. Or they will feel badly for the woman, and award her a judgment anyway. Or they will want to stick it to big corporate, and award her a judgment anyway. Think tobacco settlements. Right? No. Fair? No. Yet they are routine.
Yes, I think what they did was crappy. But this woman was given an opportunity at the discretion of those who were paying for it. They changed their minds. I would bet the farm that the contract, written for them by their attys to represent their best interests, does not leave them exposed to breach of contract.
If it does, they are idiots.
Somehow I think there were likely pre-existing issues with the sister who committed suicide. I doubt seriously that this 'slight' was what caused her drug problems, then her suicide.
If a contract is ruled unconscionable, then it is not enforceable.
What in the world do disfigured war vets have to do with this story? Earth to LoudRepublicangirl, the war vets are just as free to apply to this tv program as this poor woman did.
I can't pity this woman too much just because she thinks bigger boobs are going to change her life for the better.
Evidently you didn't read the article very well, but are quick to criticize. She was to have surgery for a deformed jaw, crooked teeth, droopy eyes AND tiny boobs. I doubt very seriously that getting the boob job was as important to her, given the fact that her other three problems are visible to everyone. It's common knowledge, if you've ever watched this show, that the people selected get to have their cosmetic surgery wish list granted.
And for the life of me, I cannot understand the nasty tone of FReepers on this thread.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.