Media Law Lecture 6 - Media Law Lecture 6 Loss of publicity...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Media Law Lecture 6 Loss of publicity – E.g Mediacorp Loss of Publicity: An artist will be entitled to damages for oss of publicity where a breach deprives him of the opportunity of appearing in public Recovery is on the basis that his existing reputation has been damaged and for loss of opportunity to enhance his reputation Note the elements of a contract .- what are the vitiating factor to become void or voidable ? At times, it can be discharged- comes under performance Blatant breach of the contact Tutorial: Offer ---- acceptance Offer: Yoyota -2003 (In excellent condition --- HYPE --- AND THUS, THIS IS NOT A FACT; when u advertise, u hype it up! -60,000 miles +1 previous owner (Fact) +30,000 (Fact) +car is suitable for racing – must be able to show it as a fact Consider “in excellent condition and car suitable for racing “ as Hype. If you want to say this is a fact, u must prove that this is a fact. –Misrepresentation Show that there is a misrepresentation : Hype/PUFF. In Exellent condition, Suitable for racing 60,000 miles + One previous owner – Misrepresentation 30,000 is NOT Misrepresentation You look at it as it is stated Misrepresentation could lead to discharge or breach. Discharge (would be taken that this contract has not taken place) Jared cannot ask for discharge cause he has alr driven it for one year However, if there is a breach, He can ask for damages Talk about the reasonable time lapse (1 day vs 1 month, 1 year. ) When he sold the car to u, it was only worth 10,000. Damges/Contractual Loss Contractual Loss- is the 20,000 tt he lost in the process. When u tok abt misrepresentation, in order for the plaintiff to succeed –
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
The misrepresentation induced u into signing the contract NOTE “ No misrepresentation in the price” Price is not the factor E.g Rolex watch Even if it is verbal, - u can still sue:- In this case, u may not even need to ve a 3 rd party – be reasonable. – Would be better if u ve prove. “You should have checked” The point is not whether u want to check or not, it doesn work. Not a valid defence Cannot be innocent misrepresentation nor negligent but would be fraudulent. -coz this is a 2
Background image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

Page1 / 6

Media Law Lecture 6 - Media Law Lecture 6 Loss of publicity...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 3. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online