Lawyer’s Nightmare

Here is a tip for other Hollywood actors. If you want to sue a studio over breach of contract, do not go to the roof of a building with a large machete and scream “I’m free at last.” As always, my thoughts go to his lawyer . . .

That was the latest scene in the sage of Charlie Sheen after he was fired by Warner Bros. from the show “Two and a Half Men.” While watching this video, I could not help but think of this guy’s lawyer sitting in his office preparing a breach of contract claim when his client suddenly comes on television waving around a machete and talking about slitting the throats of the defendants. Ironically, absent of morality clause, Sheen had a case for breach. However, the key is to argue that you really did not want to be fired. Sheen was able to keep this line up to his suspension — stating that he was ready to go back to work.

I will not get into the report that Sheen was drinking from a bottle of “Tiger Blood.” I expect that came with the machete.

Source: ABC

51 thoughts on “Lawyer’s Nightmare

  1. Mespo,

    That’s funny; but he does have a good case.

    What I can’t figure is how they’re seeking punitive damages in a contract case.

  2. Bob,Esq:

    De rigueur in California to turn most contract cases into fraud and deceit or conspiracy cases. I hear the state motto is now: “Scienter here we come. Right back where we started from.”

  3. Elaine and Mespo,

    It may well be true that he is a danger to his children, but I have no idea if what is talked aabout in the media is really going on. In the absence of real proof, speculation does not make a case. Am I giving him the benefit of the doubt? Perhaps, but like any other allegations there needs to be proof.

  4. And I submit that the danger of Charlie Sheen is far more insidious than any physical threat to those around him.

    I look at the societal impact of the Lohans & Hiltons, the Sheens & the rest, and see a frightening parallel to the long-term effects of what’s called in the world of Workers’ Compensation ‘repetitive injury.’ Our “all Charlie, all the time” bent is – I suspect – corrosive beyond measure.

    Of course, the media revels in soap operas, and ought be apportioned a huge chunk of liability. But in our collective ignorance, we’ve always allowed them a hall pass on responsibility.

    Like heavy cell phone use, it’ll take a generation or two to see just how much brain damage we’ve heaped upon ourselves.

    And why?

    Imagine all human behavior on a visible continuum, gradients 1-100. Now keep pushing the extremes at one end further and further – what happens to the ‘norm?’ It shifts. As the fulcrum of perceptive balance, it has no choice – it must continually seek equilibrium.

    So, all the crappy “look at me, I’m mouthy & crude, wealthy & lewd,” grows closer to the middle. It becomes the new norm.

    One need look no further than the fact that – at last count – something like 70,000 young minds think it would be truly cool to become one of Charlie’s “interns.”

    I would wager that on the cosmic scoreboard, Charlie Sheen will cut a considerably larger swathe of pain through society than did Charlie Manson.

  5. “Imagine all human behavior on a visible continuum, gradients 1-100. Now keep pushing the extremes at one end further and further – what happens to the ‘norm?’ It shifts. As the fulcrum of perceptive balance, it has no choice – it must continually seek equilibrium.”

    Patric,

    At the risk of going off on a tangent, I very much like your formulation in this paragraph as an explanation of the extreme shift our political system has taken.

  6. Mespo,

    Here’s the problem: While the rules of pleading may allow pleading in the alternative, they do not permit pleading in the contradictory.

    You cannot sue for breach of contract AND fraud; one necessarily precludes the other.

    So my question is if you move for punitives in some sort of related cause of action, how does the court award exemplary damages when the root action sounds in contract?

  7. Charlie Sheen is just a product of our society. We have defined deviancy downward as Patrick alluded to above.

    So what do we expect, we rag on Xtians for being goody 2 shoes and then we wonder why a POS like Charlie Sheen is paraded in public as an icon.

    We went too far in the wrong direction, maybe some things have no redeeming value/virtue. In our rush to promote freedom of speech we forgot about people who do not wish to see a Hustler on a supermarket magazine rack and we forced them to view it. What about their rights?

    Maybe a brown paper wrapping isn’t all that bad, Charlie Sheen needs one.

Comments are closed.