The very idea that value (whether based on one measure or the other) is a basis to nullify contractual obligations is itself novel. In general, the fact that you no longer think your contracts are advantageous to you, or that you think you could do better if you were allowed to sign some different contract with someone else, is not a leg…
The very idea that value (whether based on one measure or the other) is a basis to nullify contractual obligations is itself novel. In general, the fact that you no longer think your contracts are advantageous to you, or that you think you could do better if you were allowed to sign some different contract with someone else, is not a legal basis for nullifying contracts you voluntarily agreed to in the past.
So it doesn't really matter if this is framed as "this contract doesn't reflect our value in terms of wins/losses" or "this contract doesn't reflect our value as a media product." Neither presents a cognizable legal claim.
I think the crux will be a matter of "unconscionability" (a term I just learned this minute), which correlates to the "wilting flower" analogy made by our esteemed WFC contributor.
"unconscionability: A defense against the enforcement of a contract or portion of a contract. If a contract is unfair or oppressive to one party in a way that suggests abuses during its formation, a court may find it unconscionable and refuse to enforce it. A contract is most likely to be found unconscionable if both unfair bargaining and unfair substantive terms are shown. An absence of meaningful choice by the disadvantaged party is often used to prove unfair bargaining."
The very idea that value (whether based on one measure or the other) is a basis to nullify contractual obligations is itself novel. In general, the fact that you no longer think your contracts are advantageous to you, or that you think you could do better if you were allowed to sign some different contract with someone else, is not a legal basis for nullifying contracts you voluntarily agreed to in the past.
So it doesn't really matter if this is framed as "this contract doesn't reflect our value in terms of wins/losses" or "this contract doesn't reflect our value as a media product." Neither presents a cognizable legal claim.
I think the crux will be a matter of "unconscionability" (a term I just learned this minute), which correlates to the "wilting flower" analogy made by our esteemed WFC contributor.
"unconscionability: A defense against the enforcement of a contract or portion of a contract. If a contract is unfair or oppressive to one party in a way that suggests abuses during its formation, a court may find it unconscionable and refuse to enforce it. A contract is most likely to be found unconscionable if both unfair bargaining and unfair substantive terms are shown. An absence of meaningful choice by the disadvantaged party is often used to prove unfair bargaining."
- https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/unconscionability