• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Split Thread Trump-Kennedy center sues artist for cancelling because of name change

Zig keeps saying it doesn't matter. But it very well does. It's like agreeing to play in the Rose Bowl. And have the committee change the name to the the Crapper Bowl. Might be the exact same venue in Pasadena, but it no longer carries the same aura and prestige.

The idea that such a name change doesn't make difference is downright laughable.
 
Last edited:
TragicMonkey said:
And that argument can be made for both sides here. As I'm certain it will be, in court, by people --forgive me-- better than us at translating this sort of argument into legalities.
Click to expand...
They can for sure. But that's the point. The conditions have changed.
 
psionl0 said:
If Redd can't get out of the contract then I wonder if he would be able to sue them for damages. Being linked to Trump is bound to cost him business.
Click to expand...
Yes. But proving damages would be the challenge for both parties.
 
It's not only a change of name, it's a change of corporation.

Trump has made a point of saying that the "Kennedy Centre for the Performing Arts" has been changed by him to a different organisation with a "different focus". That could be construed as making it a different entity altogether, a "hostile takeover" if you prefer.

So if the organisation has changed owners, managers, direction, accounting practices and clientele, the artist is quite possibly entitled to claim that his previous contract with Kennedy Centre for Performing Arts has been voided because the entity he contracted with no longer exists. (In fact, all contracts with the previous entity could well have been voided, including employment contracts, but let's focus on this for the moment.) And since he has no contract with the "Donald J Trump and Kennedy Centre for the Performing Arts", there is no contract to break with that organisation, and he can't therefore be sued for non-fulfilment.
 
Last edited:
Ziggurat said:
It doesn't matter if the name change does something. What matters is if the name change does anything to the contract. And you haven't provided any reason to think it would. Nobody has.
Click to expand...
You seem to say that if the board had decided to change the name to "A. Hitler Memorial Center" any artists with contracts with the venue would still be forced to honour the contract? (This is not an argument that Trump is Hitler, but that renaming the venue in that way would be even worse).
 
Ziggurat said:
Even supposing it was an illegal name change, why would that allow Redd to break his contract? Unless the contract somehow makes reference to such conditions (which I find unlikely), I don't see how the name change has any effect at all on the contract or Redd's obligations under that contract even if the name change is illegal.

Whether the name change is related to anything else isn't a legally relevant question here. The legal question is, did Redd violate the terms of the contract, and if so, how much is he on the hook for? I have zero insight into that latter question, but the former question I can make some educated guesses on. Contracts often stipulate terms under which they can be cancelled unilaterally without penalty. Now, is it possible that the name change triggered such a term? That seems unlikely (why would anyone bother writing such a contingency into the contract? Was Redd expecting such a possibility?), and you aren't even arguing that it did. Is it possible that Redd was able to cancel without penalty due to some terms of the contract unrelated to the name change? That actually seems more likely than the name change triggering something, though still not a given. We cannot know either way for certain without seeing the contract. But unless the contract allowed for Redd to cancel without penalty, then he's on the hook for something, even if not a million. That's the nature of contracts.

It doesn't matter if the name change does something. What matters is if the name change does anything to the contract. And you haven't provided any reason to think it would. Nobody has.
Click to expand...
The material breach would be he is no longer performing at the venue he signed up to perform at. One of the determining issues in whether a change made unilaterally by one party could be judged to be a material breach of contract would be if the other party wouldn't have signed the contract under the new conditions. As I said earlier it would be unusual that one company in a contract changing its name would be a material breach of contract, it would change nothing essential in the contract but in this case it does change something that could be be argued to be a material breach. Consider If someone had signed a contract to perform at "The Martin Luther King Jr Theatre for supporting racial equality in the Entertainment Industry", and then the company owning the venue changed the venue's name to "The William Joseph Simmons theatre for supporting racial inequality in the Entertainment Industry", can you see how one side could argue that to be a material breach of the contract?

Is the KT center suing the performer under the terms of the contract?

ETA: Ninja'd
 
Last edited:
Ziggurat said:
The name change is only material if the terms of the contract make it material.

...snip..
Click to expand...
Not at all. It could be something that neither party explicitly placed into a contract. It's one of the reasons why especially USA contracts tend to have a puff piece section making lofty and emotional declarations about the parties involved. Gives the lawyers more room to make money when one of the parties wants out of a contract. Indeed a joke about USA contracts is that they are only ever finally negotiated when the last legal appeal has ended.
 
Darat said:
The material breach would be he is no longer performing at the venue he signed up to perform at. One of the determining issues in whether a change made unilaterally by one party could be judged to be a material breach of contract would be if the other party wouldn't have signed the contract under the new conditions. As I said earlier it would be unusual that one company in a contract changing its name would be a material breach of contract, it would change nothing essential in the contract but in this case it does change something that could be be argued to be a material breach. Consider If someone had signed a contract to perform at "The Martin Luther King Jr Theatre for supporting racial equality in the Entertainment Industry", and then the company owning the venue changed the venue's name to "The William Joseph Simmons theatre for supporting racial inequality in the Entertainment Industry", can you see how one side could argue that to be a material breach of the contract?

Is the KT center suing the performer under the terms of the contract?

ETA: Ninja'd
Click to expand...
Indeed, and the only person who can speak to that that is the performer himself. If he says he would not have wanted to perform at a venue with that name - said it was because he objected to being associated with the name, and would never have signed, that is impossible to argue against.
 
Last edited:
acbytesla said:
I think proof of the materiality of the name change will be seen in the upcoming year. This won't be the only artist who will choose not to perform there. I'm sure I could probably present affidavit after affidavit of artists who have performed at the JFK Performing Arts Center that today wouldn't perform there.
Click to expand...
Here are some starters for you... all of these oppose The Fat Orange Turd...

Mick Jagger
Lorde
Sia
Blondie
Sheryl Crow
Green Day
Lionel Richie
Elvis Costello
Keith Richards
Steven Tyler
Rosanne Cash
Adele
Aerosmith
Andrew Lloyd Webber
Beyonce
Bruce Springsteen
Nickelback
Credence Clearwater Rival
Dixie Chicks
Foo Fighters
Guns 'n' Roses
Everlast
Elton John
Linkin Park
Neil Young
Nik Kershaw
The O'Jays
Brian May (Queen)
Phil Collins
REM
Rihanna

... and there are more
 
steenkh said:
You seem to say that if the board had decided to change the name to "A. Hitler Memorial Center" any artists with contracts with the venue would still be forced to honour the contract? (This is not an argument that Trump is Hitler, but that renaming the venue in that way would be even worse).
Click to expand...
I disagree.
 
Darat said:
The material breach would be he is no longer performing at the venue he signed up to perform at. One of the determining issues in whether a change made unilaterally by one party could be judged to be a material breach of contract would be if the other party wouldn't have signed the contract under the new conditions. As I said earlier it would be unusual that one company in a contract changing its name would be a material breach of contract, it would change nothing essential in the contract but in this case it does change something that could be be argued to be a material breach. Consider If someone had signed a contract to perform at "The Martin Luther King Jr Theatre for supporting racial equality in the Entertainment Industry", and then the company owning the venue changed the venue's name to "The William Joseph Simmons theatre for supporting racial inequality in the Entertainment Industry", can you see how one side could argue that to be a material breach of the contract?

Is the KT center suing the performer under the terms of the contract?

ETA: Ninja'd
Click to expand...
I can't help but wonder if Zig thinks that say a name change from the Climate Protection Performing Arts Center to the ExxonMobil American Coal Institute for the Performing Arts isn't a material change in the contract?

Does he really believe that someone who was passionate about environmental protection would have agreed to a contract with the latter? I'm pretty sure the materiality of any contract is whether they would have agreed to the contract under both circumstances. I mean a change from the Shell Center to the ExxonMobil Center wouldn't be material. It wouldn't really change a thing. But this isn't that.
 
bruto said:
It's more than just a change of name, though. There's a fairly convincing argument that the change was actually illegal, and it's pretty transparently certain that the purpose of firing the board of directors and hiring a bunch of MAGA supporters, followed by that change of name, was to change the institution itself, and specifically to alter what it represents, how it operates, and whom it serves. It might well be argued that such an illegal takeover of the institution and dismissal of its founding charter could annul any contract made with its predecessor.

It seems endemic for right wing apologists to take every instance of anything as unique and unrelated to anything else. You might manage to argue that a mere change of the name on the building doesn't do anything, but along with impugning your own intelligence for pretending it does not stand for much more, you'd run the risk of denying any reason for doing it.
Click to expand...

If nothing else it politicised the institution and as a result performing there becomes at worst an explicitly political statement, at best something that might be considered or portrayed as one.
 
Ziggurat said:
Not really. Entities change their names all the time, doing so does not in general nullify or even modify contracts. Imagine what would happen if companies could void contracts by simply changing their name.
Click to expand...
Its not just the fact that "they changed their name", its what they changed it too.

Lets say (for example) that they changed the name of the venue to the "Hitler was a swell guy Performing arts center". An artist might want to avoid performing there because they would rightly want to avoid having their name associated with Hitler. Its the same with havigng the venue named Trump (except for the tiny moustache....)

I do think an artist has a reasonable expectation that any venue that they might perform at will not do anything to tarnish their name.
 
TragicMonkey said:
And that argument can be made for both sides here. As I'm certain it will be, in court, by people --forgive me-- better than us at translating this sort of argument into legalities.
Click to expand...
You are right. This is in the hands of the lawyers who have a better understanding of contract law and the issues involved.

I think people are right to be skeptical of this lawsuit's success because Trump and his Klan have a long history of messing up the law... between a judge sanctioning Trump and one of his lawyers for frivilous lawsuits, loosing repeatedly in court when they try to engage in malicious prosecutions, and seeing other cases get quickly dismissed (the Jan 6 lawsuits, Trump trying to sue someone for claiming he "wasn't a billionaire"). Because of their general incompetence its natural to assume this lawsuit will go the same way.
 
So far, rhe people that have cancelled performances at the Kennedy Center include:
Issa Rae, Rhiannon Giddens, Peter Wolf, Low Cut Connie, and the Gay Men’s Chorus of Washington, D.C.
Lin-Manuel Miranda has canceled the entire Kennedy Center run of Hamilton.
 
Segnosaur said:
Its not just the fact that "they changed their name", its what they changed it too.

Lets say (for example) that they changed the name of the venue to the "Hitler was a swell guy Performing arts center". An artist might want to avoid performing there because they would rightly want to avoid having their name associated with Hitler. Its the same with havigng the venue named Trump
(except for the tiny moustache....)
I do think an artist has a reasonable expectation that any venue that they might perform at will not do anything to tarnish their name.
Click to expand...
And as is often humorously said "at least he loved his dogs", that can't be said for Trump.
 
Segnosaur said:
Its not just the fact that "they changed their name", its what they changed it too.

Lets say (for example) that they changed the name of the venue to the "Hitler was a swell guy Performing arts center". An artist might want to avoid performing there because they would rightly want to avoid having their name associated with Hitler. Its the same with havigng the venue named Trump (except for the tiny moustache....)

I do think an artist has a reasonable expectation that any venue that they might perform at will not do anything to tarnish their name.
Click to expand...

In fairness, even if it wasn't Trump, renaming a venue in honour of an overtly political figure is potentially problematic for artists booked before the change, If Kid Rock and Ted Nugent were booked for a venue and it changed it's name to 'The Hillary Rodham Clinton Centre For The Performing Arts' I'm sure they'd refuse to play there, and that would be fair enough. Not refusing to perform is being described as a political act, but performing would have been as well. This sudden name change has dropped artists into a political controversy they had no desire to become embroiled in nd regardless of their personal politics they shouldn't be forced into a position where they have to risk alienating a section of their audience whatever they choose to do.
 
Last edited:
P.J. Denyer said:
In fairness, even if it wasn't Trump, renaming a venue in honour of an overtly political figure is potentially problematic for artists booked before the change, If Kid Rock and Ted Nugent were booked for a venue and it changed it's name to 'The Hillary Rodham Clinton Centre For The Performing Arts' I'm sure they'd refuse to play there, and that would be fair enough. Not refusing to perform is being described as a political act, but performing would have been as well. This sudden name change has dropped artists into a political controversy they had no desire to become embroiled in nd regardless of their personal politics they shouldn't be forced into a position where they have to risk alienating a section of their audience whatever they choose to do.
Click to expand...
Perhaps a better course would have been to drag a chair onto the stage, sit down and read a book for however long the performance is meant to have lasted, they could even have hummed a few bars of music to make it a musical night.
 
Darat said:
Perhaps a better course would have been to drag a chair onto the stage, sit down and read a book for however long the performance is meant to have lasted, they could even have hummed a few bars of music to make it a musical night.
Click to expand...

Or the constitution and listed the ways Trump's acted in contridiction to it, followed by a list of the laws he's broken. I'd suggest moving on to the lies he's told, but it was a gig not a residency.
 
Darat said:
Perhaps a better course would have been to drag a chair onto the stage, sit down and read a book for however long the performance is meant to have lasted, they could even have hummed a few bars of music to make it a musical night.
Click to expand...
The problem is, the people would be most likely to see his performance would probably be people who lean to the left side of the political spectrum. So yes, he would be making a political statement by showing up but not performing, but the people most affected by that type of protest are the ones who didn't vote for Stubby McBonespurs in the first place.
 
Darat said:
Perhaps a better course would have been to drag a chair onto the stage, sit down and read a book for however long the performance is meant to have lasted, they could even have hummed a few bars of music to make it a musical night.
Click to expand...
Segnosaur said:
The problem is, the people would be most likely to see his performance would probably be people who lean to the left side of the political spectrum. So yes, he would be making a political statement by showing up but not performing, but the people most affected by that type of protest are the ones who didn't vote for Stubby McBonespurs in the first place.
Click to expand...
Just changing the name, not only can affect the artists but also the customers as Seg just pointed out. Particularly when it might relate to political differences. Now of course we don't know the terms of said contract. But it might include a percentage of the gate. And a minimum amount to the venue or Artist. What if ticket sales are affected? Who exactly is suffering the damages.

This isn't like Safeco Field becoming T-Mobile Park where no-one gives a crap
 
Mojo said:
In England, the damages awarded would be on the basis of the loss incurred. How does it work in the U.S.? Is the plaintiff just allowed to name some arbitrary sum, or is reality allowed to insert itself?
Click to expand...
Civil suits in the US are often pretty loosey-goosey. I'm not sure there's any actual rules for how much can be asked for, and I think (not certain) that the judge can decide to award a different amount than asked. Civil suits are super weird.
 
Ziggurat said:
Even supposing it was an illegal name change, why would that allow Redd to break his contract? Unless the contract somehow makes reference to such conditions (which I find unlikely), I don't see how the name change has any effect at all on the contract or Redd's obligations under that contract even if the name change is illegal.

Whether the name change is related to anything else isn't a legally relevant question here. The legal question is, did Redd violate the terms of the contract, and if so, how much is he on the hook for? I have zero insight into that latter question, but the former question I can make some educated guesses on. Contracts often stipulate terms under which they can be cancelled unilaterally without penalty. Now, is it possible that the name change triggered such a term? That seems unlikely (why would anyone bother writing such a contingency into the contract? Was Redd expecting such a possibility?), and you aren't even arguing that it did. Is it possible that Redd was able to cancel without penalty due to some terms of the contract unrelated to the name change? That actually seems more likely than the name change triggering something, though still not a given. We cannot know either way for certain without seeing the contract. But unless the contract allowed for Redd to cancel without penalty, then he's on the hook for something, even if not a million. That's the nature of contracts.

It doesn't matter if the name change does something. What matters is if the name change does anything to the contract. And you haven't provided any reason to think it would. Nobody has.
Click to expand...
Surely if the people you are hired by breaks the law, you would be within your rights to not be a participant in their law-breaking? In fact, in some cases you would be legally obliged not to participate in law-breaking.
 
acbytesla said:
The simple fact that all of the performer's correspondence and legal documents were likely with the John F Kennedy Performing Arts Center as opposed to being with President Donald J Turd Performing Arts Center makes any contractual agreements questionable.
Click to expand...
I don't believe this is true. As long as the actual parties involved in the contract remain the same, a name change on the part of one party doesn't invalidate the contract itself. The only reasonable exception might be if the name is material to the nature of the contract, such as a franchise or a licensed use rights.
 
Mojo said:
In England, the damages awarded would be on the basis of the loss incurred. How does it work in the U.S.? Is the plaintiff just allowed to name some arbitrary sum, or is reality allowed to insert itself?
Click to expand...
A prayer for relief in an American civil complaint will typically ask for compensatory damages, punitive damages, attorney's costs, and a catch-all award for any other amount the court deems proper. A plaintiff may also pray for equitable relief such as release from a contractual obligation.

The amount of compensatory damages—actual loss incurred—must be supported in court by evidence and thus bear some resemblance to reality. The trier of fact will determine whether that evidence is credible and award an amount consistent with the strength of the evidence and the particulars of the claim.

In jurisdictions and specific cases that allow punitive damages, the plaintiff may ask for any amount and the jury may award any amount. But in general the amount of punitive damages generally may not exceed three times the amount of compensatory damages. The judge may adjust the amount awarded by the jury, but this is infrequent.

By default each party in a suit in America bears its own legal costs. But a prevailing plaintiff may ask for an award of attorney's fees as part of the judgment. A prevailing defendant generally has a higher burden of proof to move for an award of fees from an unsuccessful plaintiff. A prevailing defendant must show that the suit was frivolous or malicious. In the case of a contract dispute, the award of attorney's fees to the prevailing party in a suit arising out of the contract may be one of the terms agreed to in the contract itself.generally this is not done.

As near as I can tell, no lawsuit has actually yet been filed. The center has merely announced its intention to sue, so we don't know exactly in what form the relief is being sought.
 
acbytesla said:
It's not what I desire, it is the desires of the person who agrees to a contract. They agree to the terms of the contract. If they merely changed the name on the paperwork, that would be one thing. But they are changing the name of the venue itself. A very public difference.
Click to expand...
I've now worked for two different companies that legally changed their names during the course of my employment. It doesn't negate contracts in force. Seriously, when Anthem changed their name to Elevance (stupid name, I always end up with pink elephants dancing in my brain) it didn't negate all of their existing contracts. With very few exceptions where the use of the name is material to the contracted service itself, the only impact is that either the name gets swapped out in the next contract update, or for evergreen/long-term contracts a n0-sign amendment gets issued.
 
Emily's Cat said:
The simple fact that all of the performer's correspondence and legal documents were likely with the John F Kennedy Performing Arts Center as opposed to being with President Donald J Turd Performing Arts Center makes any contractual agreements questionable.
Click to expand...
I don't believe this is true. As long as the actual parties involved in the contract remain the same, a name change on the part of one party doesn't invalidate the contract itself. The only reasonable exception might be if the name is material to the nature of the contract, such as a franchise or a licensed use rights.
Click to expand...
I wonder if there might be another loophole...

Even if changing the name an organization or company does not 'break' a contract, if his contract said "Perform at the Kennedy center", he could possibly claim "I would have performed there but a building by that name no longer exists" (i.e. the breaking of the contract came from the side of the Trump administration.)

There is also the possibility that other loopholes exist in the contract. (After all, performers have to have a way to cancel events in cases of illness, or for personal/family emergencies.)
 
angrysoba said:
Surely if the people you are hired by breaks the law, you would be within your rights to not be a participant in their law-breaking? In fact, in some cases you would be legally obliged not to participate in law-breaking.
Click to expand...
Even assuming the name change was illegal (which, it's worth noting, is not the same thing as being criminal), performing at the venue would not also be illegal as a result. His performance would not constitute participation in the name change itself. That wouldn't make any sense.
 
acbytesla said:
Zig keeps saying it doesn't matter.
Click to expand...
Actually, Zig didn't say it doesn't matter. Zig said it probably doesn't matter, since the names of the parties on the contract are rarely material to the contract itself. If the parties stay the same, then the name change of one party or the other is almost never material.

My mortgage lender changed their name a couple of years ago. That doesn't allow me to shrug off my mortgage, because the name of the entity with whom I have an agreement isn't material to the contract itself.

There are some situations in which the name of the party *is* material to the contract, but they're not common.
 
Segnosaur said:
Even if changing the name an organization or company does not 'break' a contract, if his contract said "Perform at the Kennedy center", he could possibly claim "I would have performed there but a building by that name no longer exists" (i.e. the breaking of the contract came from the side of the Trump administration.)
Click to expand...
If the name change does not create ambiguity about what's being referred to (and in this case, it does not), then I don't think he could successfully argue that.
Segnosaur said:
There is also the possibility that other loopholes exist in the contract. (After all, performers have to have a way to cancel events in cases of illness, or for personal/family emergencies.)
Click to expand...
Sure, I've said from the start that the terms of the contract might allow for cancellation. The two specific ones you mention here wouldn't work, though, since neither apply to Redd in this case. Some cancellation clauses require sufficient advance notice (specified by the clause), so that might limit his options as well.
 
steenkh said:
You seem to say that if the board had decided to change the name to "A. Hitler Memorial Center" any artists with contracts with the venue would still be forced to honour the contract? (This is not an argument that Trump is Hitler, but that renaming the venue in that way would be even worse).
Click to expand...
In most cases, yes, they would still be expected to honor the contract.

They could probably sue the counterparty for reputational damage or something, but that's an entirely different process. At the end of the day, unless the name of the party to the contract is directly material to the contract itself, a change in the name of the party doesn't void the contract. It's remotely possible that some aspect of the contract provided cancellation rights to the performer that the name change would trigger - but as Zig said, that's a matter for the lawyers to figure out and is specific to the contract in question.
 
acbytesla said:
I can't help but wonder if Zig thinks that say a name change from the Climate Protection Performing Arts Center to the ExxonMobil American Coal Institute for the Performing Arts isn't a material change in the contract?

Does he really believe that someone who was passionate about environmental protection would have agreed to a contract with the latter? I'm pretty sure the materiality of any contract is whether they would have agreed to the contract under both circumstances. I mean a change from the Shell Center to the ExxonMobil Center wouldn't be material. It wouldn't really change a thing. But this isn't that.
Click to expand...
"Your honor, I wouldn't have done this if it were different" isn't as strong a legal argument as you might think. Yes, you're correct that someone passionate about environmental protection probably wouldn't have contracted with a venue named after an oil company. But that's irrelevant unless the name of the venue is a material element of the contract itself.
 
acbytesla said:
The simple fact that all of the performer's correspondence and legal documents were likely with the John F Kennedy Performing Arts Center as opposed to being with President Donald J Turd Performing Arts Center makes any contractual agreements questionable.
Click to expand...
No, it doesn't matter at all. I've done business with numerous companies who have changed names and I have never had a problem enforcing a contract with any of them that was made under a previous name.

acbytesla said:
By adding the name Trump to the Arts Center they have sullied the brand.
Click to expand...
And that's where the center's behavior may have stepped into material breach, which is unrelated to the formalism of a name change. Merely changing the name has no legal consequence as long as it is merely the name by which the contracted entity is publicly known. But if the change of name also changes something material such as the institution's reputation, then it can be one example of any number of such behaviors that may provide grounds to exit a contract.

acbytesla said:
It went from being a prestigious brand that added to the pedigree of the artist to a brand that detracted from it.
Click to expand...
According to the center's correspondence, adding Donald Trump's name enhanced the center's reputation. However, if by doing so the center concedes that the name change affected the center's reputation as a matter of intent, then it loses the ability to enforce the contract under the premise that the name-change was neutral. Then it devolves to the basic principle of material breach, whereby the other party can say it would not have entered into the contract under the conditions following the breach.

acbytesla said:
And it is totally fine if the artist is making a political statement. He has every right to do so. And as if the board wasn't making a political statement.
Click to expand...
Indeed, the Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts wasn't made prestigious so much by being associated with Kennedy's name as it was by the guidance of its directors over the years and its success on the merits of its programming. One didn't attend events or perform there out of devotion to the Kennedy name, but out of respect for what the institution has essentially been. It was an apolitical organization, despite its namesake. If one party to the contract elects to transform the venue in order to make a political statement, the other parties may not wish to associate with the statement and may attempt the argument that a material breach has occurred by transforming an apolitical arts organization into a politicized venue.
 
Last edited:
P.J. Denyer said:
In fairness, even if it wasn't Trump, renaming a venue in honour of an overtly political figure is potentially problematic for artists booked before the change, If Kid Rock and Ted Nugent were booked for a venue and it changed it's name to 'The Hillary Rodham Clinton Centre For The Performing Arts' I'm sure they'd refuse to play there, and that would be fair enough. Not refusing to perform is being described as a political act, but performing would have been as well. This sudden name change has dropped artists into a political controversy they had no desire to become embroiled in nd regardless of their personal politics they shouldn't be forced into a position where they have to risk alienating a section of their audience whatever they choose to do.
Click to expand...
Sure. But it's also plausible that failing to perform will result in a breach of contract. The performer might view that as the better option, but that doesn't magically make it not a breach.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom