Already a member? Click here to sign in!

new kind of slavery? Charlize suit closely watched

posted 10/5/2008 7:12:00 AM |

1 kudo

what's this?

report abuse

iglooo101

Charlize suit closely watched
Sunday, October 5th 2008, 4:00 AM
Academy Award-winning actress Charlize Theron has been sued for $20 million by Raymond Weil for allegedly reneging on a contract to wear only their watches.
Charlize Theron will head to court later this month in a $20 million lawsuit - all because she accessorized with some renegade bling.
Swiss timekeepers Raymond Weil had claimed Theron reneged on an endorsement contract specifying that she wear their watches - and only their watches - 24/7. The "Monster" star tried to fight the claims back in February, but this week a judge ruled that the proceedings must indeed go to trial. At stake? The "substantial funds" that Raymond Weil wants back, estimated by lawyers to be $20 million.
According to court papers, Theron must appear in Federal Court for the Southern District of New York by the end of October. Tick-tock
full article

I guess this is a new kind of slavery.
Very terrible not to be able to be free even in what you wear or eat.
Shame on you Swiss timekeepers

Copy & paste to friend: (Click inside box; Ctrl + C to copy; Ctrl + V to paste)

read more blogs!

Blogs by iglooo101:

one good speech http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d4Mj9iAkvLQ

*Higher Quality* McCain Says "Horses***" During the 26/9/2008 Debate?

calculate your taxes under obama http://taxcut.barackobama.com/

Hope jumps at salmon's return to Switzerland

you will lose ALL your friends+Confident vs. confidential+Anger management

new kind of slavery? Charlize suit closely watched

the story in layman's words...."How the financial bubble burst"

who, what, where Nikola Tesla and the new sexy Tesla

re leprichaun_magic's blog A Rover.?:) here is a link to the song

Bobby Fischer, end?

Comments:

post a comment!

oct_cat	Oct 5 @ 7:38AM
	I guess this is a new kind of slavery. Very terrible not to be able to be free even in what you wear or eat. If a person signs a contract agreeing to be paid $$$$$$ for wearing an item & is required to wear only that item, so what?? It's all a part of the game of being famous. Shame on people who don't read contracts carefully BEFORE signing just because they have $ in their eyes.

ragtopcookie	Oct 5 @ 8:09AM
	And i agree also.....you start to feel sorry for the rich and famious over bad contract deals....and you start to care about who they endorse for public office....time to live your own life.......cookie

iglooo101	Oct 5 @ 8:16AM
	The Merchant of Venice The way I see it, it is another form of slavery. There must be somewhere a law against enslaving people.

jamminjerry	Oct 5 @ 9:26AM
	a very odd complaint in a capitalistic society. millions of americans are enslaved because of their greed and wants. we accept the slavery/servitude almost without question. that is capitalism at its highest level, to benefit from the greed of another. in America you cannot sell to an honorable man that which he does not want. let us guess a suitable reverse analogy would be the servitude/slavery that the arab people exchange for their religion. what is unique to america is that we prevent religious "laws" from controling a person thru servitude/slavery. in America religion is considered completely free from man's laws. only my God's laws apply to me. and here it is the same for every person who is an american. no man nor woman is forced to serve another god. and so, although i am a slave to my greed i am not a slave to my God. i stand a free man before my God. selah we be jammin

mailorderannie	Oct 5 @ 9:37AM
	I don't see where "slavery" is involved. She signed the contract, she received compensation, she didn't adhere to the terms. Where's the slavery in that?

dixiepixie	Oct 5 @ 10:52AM
	She was not enslaved. She signed a business contract and no doubt had plenty of her own lawyers look over the contract before signing it and before accepting the money that was paid to her by that business. As you can clearly see she decided not to abide by the contract and was completely free not to do so..... Where does the slavery come into it? Is she responsible for paying back the money she received from that company plus damages... you had better believe she is. That is not slavery it is contract law and justice to the company who trusted her to do what she said she would do.

goatman	Oct 5 @ 11:39AM
	I don't see slavery here. I read that she was paid well to endorse a product, then she decided to renig and wear someone else's product instead.... clearly a breach of contract. I'm sure she didn't complain when she cashed the check or spent the money! Many of these highly paid "STARS", be it Hollywood, sports, etc., think they're too special to have to follow the rules. Just my opinion. da goat

TallBlonde1	Oct 5 @ 11:40AM
	You can compare it to showing up for a job at McDonalds wearing a Burger King outfit. She signed a contract, she should be brought to task for not holding up her end of the deal. It's hardly slavery when you agree, sign a contract and get paid for doing it. It's not not shame on the timekeepers,it's shame on her. I feel about as sorry for her as I do for Ed McMahon. Rich people creating their own problems by being arrogant aren't worth thinking about at all.

kywonder	Oct 5 @ 11:42AM
	Shame on her for loving money more than she loved her freedom. I bet she used the money from the contract to buy the other bling.

MrPaul	Oct 5 @ 12:06PM
	hey send me 20 million and I will wear the watch

CHARLIgurl1	Oct 5 @ 12:31PM
	Unfortunately, a contract is just that, a contract. An agreement between 2 parties. She agreed to wear the watches, and they agreed to pay her. They held up their side, she did not, so therefore she is in breach of contract. If she didnt want to be 'enslaved" by wearing them continually, then she should not sign and receive the money. If everyone were to welch on their contracts, and have no reprocussions, then there would be no need for contracts in the first place. I feel she should have thought this through before signing.

iglooo101	Oct 5 @ 3:41PM
	I agree with you all. BUT I feel like there is a point that been overlooked. "what was built on wrong is wrong" YES, a contract is a contract AND the contract is the law of the contractee BUT imagine 2 people writing a contract, 1st person will deliver to the 2nd some NARCOTICS for a sum of money. Is this contract valid? can you take it to the court of law? From the outside, it is valid, it is a contract. BUT, from the inside, it is built around an OUTLAWED/INVALID TRADE. That is why, in some INSURANCE ADS, you see this clause "not valid in the states of CA, NY,NJ"..because they have no right to do business there and they have to make it clear, otherwise, the contract will be INVALID

post a comment!

| | | | | | | | |