FAQ abt Bernice


Status
Not open for further replies.

student

Senior Member
Jul 26, 2004
3,078
0
0
#21
waileong said:
This is not common law, but the law of contract.

As you may know, a contract involves an agreement between parties. In this case, one party was to provide models in bikini for a shoot in return for consideration from the other party for the shoot.

Now, if one party did not deliver according to the material terms of the contract, which in this case, is the "bikini" portion, then there would be, at the very least, misrepresentation and breach of contract, for which remedies are available.

Among the remedies include restitution (meaning give back the money) or compensation (which means, give back part of the money to compensate for providing models only in half-bikini), if the party is truly unwilling or unable to perform according to the material terms of the contract.

Note: I'm not the one who complained about breach of contract. And this is all theoretical discussion only. I have no idea whether the models actually showed up in full bikini or not. And I'm not the least interested in this shoot. I'm only writing this to clarify the legal viewpoints, and only because you and I met in modelinn shoots.

I am not making any accusation against the organiser, since I have no way of knowing whether the models actually posed in full bikini. All I am saying is, from a strictly legal point of view, if one party did not fulfil his obligations to the letter, there is a breach of contract for which legal remedies are available.

This has nothing to do with the common law. Whether a transaction is arm's length or not is immaterial. In fact, "arm's length" is more a corporate governance concept and audit concept than a contract law concept. As far as contracts are concerned, whatever is agreed has to be executed, whether the transaction is arm's length or not.

I hope this clarifies the legal issues concerned. While CS-ers are unlikely to sue shoot organisers over such small amounts, I hope this will provide clarity to all concerned.

Again, This is a discussion on legal theory only. Thank you.

I am not trained in law. And I am aware that what you wrote is for discussion only.

What you wrote makes perfect sense to me. Simple plain common sense. And since this issue was raised because of this shoot, I feel that it is appropriate to clarify the issues.

The issue is not just this shoot. The issue is more than this shoot. The issue is an unfair insinuation of a breach of contract by Gravemaid and the models. A slur casts at the professional standing of Gravemaid and the models.

I was at the shoot, and the ladies were in bikinis. There was absolutely no ground whatsoever for anyone to insinuate that Gravemaid and the models did not fulfill their part of the "transaction".

Maybe others might feel that it is a small matter. But I feel that those that make such insinuations should not be allowed to get away. That is the reason why I took up the cudgel.
 

Canonised

Senior Member
Aug 27, 2003
2,998
4
0
#22
OMG .... and here we go again? .....................:cry:
 

waileong

Deregistered
Feb 5, 2003
2,519
0
0
Visit site
#23
You wanted to raise the issue of unfair insinuation and "passing slur on the professional intergrity of another member". If you take this to a natural conclusion, it would mean that you are saying someone has defamed or slandered the member (gravemaid, in this case).

If gravemaid honestly feels she has been slandered or defamed, she can sue. But you can't, since you're not the one being slandered or defamed.

Just be aware that to sue for slander or defamation, the plaintiff has to be quite sure of his own case, since losing means also paying the other party's legal costs.

First, the plaintiff would have to prove that ZC uttered the words in public, and that the words used were actually libellous. That's not easy in this case, given that what ZC said was, "if XXX did not deliver, then XXX did not fulfil her obligations". Note the "if". In my view, ZC made a comment, not a statement of fact.

Second, she'd have to prove that the words actually hurt her reputation and standing, and caused her to be subject to ridicule, odium and public contempt.

Also, remember that "fair comment" is a common defence for slander/defamation suits. Fair comment means that, under the circumstances, it would be a reasonable conclusion that could be drawn by a reasonable man. Whether the comment is right or wrong is unimportant. What is important is whether there was a reasonable basis for the comments.

In this case, having seen no photos of anyone in full bikini, even after making repeated requests to post such photos, it would appear that "fair comment" could be a viable defence.

Anyway, all this is legal theory. I could be right, I could be wrong, it depends on the facts of the case, whether I interpreted the law correctly, how well it is argued in court, etc.

Morally, it's a separate matter. You feel he was out of line. I don't, but I doubt anyone can change your feelings.

But life goes on.
===
PS In law, it's not about "fair" or "unfair". There is only "guilty" or "not guilty", "true" or "untrue", and "proven" or "unproven".

student said:
The issue is not just this shoot. The issue is more than this shoot. The issue is an unfair insinuation of a breach of contract by Gravemaid and the models. A slur casts at the professional standing of Gravemaid and the models.

I was at the shoot, and the ladies were in bikinis. There was absolutely no ground whatsoever for anyone to insinuate that Gravemaid and the models did not fulfill their part of the "transaction".

Maybe others might feel that it is a small matter. But I feel that those that make such insinuations should not be allowed to get away. That is the reason why I took up the cudgel.
 

Canonised

Senior Member
Aug 27, 2003
2,998
4
0
#24
Hey brothers ..... please respect the TP and keep this thread clean.
I think most of us are already sick and tired of this no-ending discussion. If neccessary why not one of you start a new thread in the kopitiam : ST vs ZC or something like that and trash it out....:cry:
 

waileong

Deregistered
Feb 5, 2003
2,519
0
0
Visit site
#25
Canonised said:
Hey brothers ..... please respect the TP and keep this thread clean.
I think most of us are already sick and tired of this no-ending discussion. If neccessary why not one of you start a new thread in the kopitiam : ST vs ZC or something like that and trash it out....:cry:
1. You don't have to come in if you are sick and tired. But the fact that the visits to this and the other thread is high suggests maybe people are not sick or tired.

2. At least in my case, I am not engaging in personal attacks (or even non-personal attacks), but I hope I am providing valuable information about the legal issues involved. If so, I think there may be interested in the info I have provided.

3. The question was raised in regard to gravemaid's shoot, so I hope that providing the clarifications above is on-topic.
 

Canonised

Senior Member
Aug 27, 2003
2,998
4
0
#26
waileong said:
1. You don't have to come in if you are sick and tired. But the fact that the visits to this and the other thread is high suggests maybe people are not sick or tired.

2. At least in my case, I am not engaging in personal attacks (or even non-personal attacks), but I hope I am providing valuable information about the legal issues involved. If so, I think there may be interested in the info I have provided.

3. The question was raised in regard to gravemaid's shoot, so I hope that providing the clarifications above is on-topic.
You think you own this place? ... you asking me not to come in here just because I am sick and tired of YOU?
I am TELLING you nicely that you are in the wrong home for any arguments or the wrong place for you to show off your elementary legal jargons and you still insist that you are providing valuable information about legal issues (this' a joke? :bsmilie: ) .... go find a proper place like kopitiam. Is that simple enough?
READ this :>>> Workshops, Studio/Model Shoots Sign up for paid workshops & shoots.
 

kcuf2

Senior Member
Dec 29, 2005
1,777
1
38
KFC
#27
Canonised said:
You think you own this place? ... you asking me not to come in here just because I am sick and tired of YOU?
I am TELLING you nicely that you are in the wrong home for any arguments or the wrong place for you to show off your elementary legal jargons and you still insist that you are providing valuable information about legal issues (this' a joke? :bsmilie: ) .... go find a proper place like kopitiam. Is that simple enough?
READ this :>>> Workshops, Studio/Model Shoots Sign up for paid workshops & shoots.
canonised, just ignore him la... can't be bothered with him.

anyway, gravemaid: all the best to u!
 

#28
I feel so ashamed that you guys have to post remarks like this.. Especially in a thread started by Gravemaid.. The main thread was closed for a reason.. Please just drop it..
 

waileong

Deregistered
Feb 5, 2003
2,519
0
0
Visit site
#30
Absolutely. Except that I didn't tell you not to come. What I said was you don't have to come if you are sick and tired. In other words, the choice is yours. If you want to come despite being sick and tired, you're most welcome.

If you want to come 100 times a day, it's fine with me. If you don't want to come, that's fine too.

There are many people whose posts here are abrasive, crass, rude and bo liao. I don't like them very much. But to tell them to stop posting is futile. It's futile to think that I can change them, that they will listen to me. So I have to decide, when they participate in a thread, do I want to continue to read the thread or not. If reading that thread makes me hot and bothered, I don't think I'm going to.

Canonised said:
You think you own this place? ... you asking me not to come in here just because I am sick and tired of YOU?
I am TELLING you nicely that you are in the wrong home for any arguments or the wrong place for you to show off your elementary legal jargons and you still insist that you are providing valuable information about legal issues (this' a joke? :bsmilie: ) .... go find a proper place like kopitiam. Is that simple enough?
READ this :>>> Workshops, Studio/Model Shoots Sign up for paid workshops & shoots.
 

eng_keow

New Member
Oct 8, 2004
1,022
0
0
Mt Alvernia Hospital
www.pbase.com
#32
Thank you for your clarification, Lydia. :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

The fact tat you bothered to clarify and make things clear shows tat u are responsible and trusthworthy. If it hasn't been u, we may never have a chance and honor to work with Bernice. Thanks. :)

I hope to join ur organised shoots in future with I am sure many others.
 

Mar 5, 2006
262
0
0
#33
Great job for Lydia and the models. Bernice has my vote for having the qualities of an excellent model.

A friend of mine had done photoshoots on several famous HK stars who made official visits to Singapore in the 60s/70s. It was FOC for him as he had some connections to the Shaw bros. Those stars won't even complain when shooting under the hot sun at noon at Botanical Gardens. The shootouts were private sessions (btw) and not intended to bring them more fame. They just hope to please the right people to help promote their own film(s).

I agree with Lydia that money is only one small facet in any tie-up with popular models. Many things in life cannot be traded with cash, let alone a precious moment with Bernice.

Cheers to a higher CS standard! :thumbsup:
Contaxable
 

#34
contaxable said:
Great job for Lydia and the models. Bernice has my vote for having the qualities of an excellent model.

A friend of mine had done photoshoots on several famous HK stars who made official visits to Singapore in the 60s/70s. It was FOC for him as he had some connections to the Shaw bros. Those stars won't even complain when shooting under the hot sun at noon at Botanical Gardens. The shootouts were private sessions (btw) and not intended to bring them more fame. They just hope to please the right people to help promote their own film(s).

I agree with Lydia that money is only one small facet in any tie-up with popular models. Many things in life cannot be traded with cash, let alone a precious moment with Bernice.

Cheers to a higher CS standard! :thumbsup:
Contaxable
Thanks for the ups :) Isn't that ashleigh in your avatar?
 

syl

New Member
Nov 1, 2005
810
0
0
Singapore
#36
waileong said:
You wanted to raise the issue of unfair insinuation and "passing slur on the professional intergrity of another member". If you take this to a natural conclusion, it would mean that you are saying someone has defamed or slandered the member (gravemaid, in this case).

If gravemaid honestly feels she has been slandered or defamed, she can sue. But you can't, since you're not the one being slandered or defamed.

Just be aware that to sue for slander or defamation, the plaintiff has to be quite sure of his own case, since losing means also paying the other party's legal costs.

First, the plaintiff would have to prove that ZC uttered the words in public, and that the words used were actually libellous. That's not easy in this case, given that what ZC said was, "if XXX did not deliver, then XXX did not fulfil her obligations". Note the "if". In my view, ZC made a comment, not a statement of fact.

Second, she'd have to prove that the words actually hurt her reputation and standing, and caused her to be subject to ridicule, odium and public contempt.

Also, remember that "fair comment" is a common defence for slander/defamation suits. Fair comment means that, under the circumstances, it would be a reasonable conclusion that could be drawn by a reasonable man. Whether the comment is right or wrong is unimportant. What is important is whether there was a reasonable basis for the comments.

In this case, having seen no photos of anyone in full bikini, even after making repeated requests to post such photos, it would appear that "fair comment" could be a viable defence.

Anyway, all this is legal theory. I could be right, I could be wrong, it depends on the facts of the case, whether I interpreted the law correctly, how well it is argued in court, etc.

Morally, it's a separate matter. You feel he was out of line. I don't, but I doubt anyone can change your feelings.

But life goes on.
===
PS In law, it's not about "fair" or "unfair". There is only "guilty" or "not guilty", "true" or "untrue", and "proven" or "unproven".
Wah you talk like a lawyer but I need to correct you as you have given some very wrong information to all innocent parties to this thread. FWIW, the Law of Contract IS BASED on Common Law. (See your statement:This is not common law, but the law of contract). AFAIK, the Law of Contract has not been codified yet so it is all based on precedents, i.e. common law. I don't wish to make any further comment on this topic as I feel this is a photography site and not a site for debating legal issues by non-legally trained persons.
 

waileong

Deregistered
Feb 5, 2003
2,519
0
0
Visit site
#37
Thank you for your clarification. I don't want to make too long a reply either, so here goes. You are right that the Law of Contract is part of the Common Law, just like the Law of Property, Tort, etc. It is based on a mix of case law and statutes. However, I don't like the colloquial use of the term "common law" when discussing with non-lawyers as it can be easily misunderstood. As you know, Common Law is quite a broad term, it includes both Civil Law and Criminal Law, and it establishes how decisions are to be made. To say that agreements are subject to the law of contract is much clearer in my view, even if it's not a statute.

syl said:
Wah you talk like a lawyer but I need to correct you as you have given some very wrong information to all innocent parties to this thread. FWIW, the Law of Contract IS BASED on Common Law. (See your statement:This is not common law, but the law of contract). AFAIK, the Law of Contract has not been codified yet so it is all based on precedents, i.e. common law. I don't wish to make any further comment on this topic as I feel this is a photography site and not a site for debating legal issues by non-legally trained persons.
 

Mar 5, 2006
262
0
0
#38
Gravemaid said:
Thanks for the ups :) Isn't that ashleigh in your avatar?

Hi Lydia

U have sharp eyes...:bsmilie: It wasn't a fetish, but just a planned shot. I think u should know where that spot was as many of the visitors had to make one trip there... :p

This is an interesting thread indeed. Missiles are all over us while we just chat on. Life is as complex as it is artificial. Let's enjoy life as it is.

Cheers :thumbsup:
Contaxable...
 

#39
contaxable said:
Hi Lydia

U have sharp eyes...:bsmilie: It wasn't a fetish, but just a planned shot. I think u should know where that spot was as many of the visitors had to make one trip there... :p

This is an interesting thread indeed. Missiles are all over us while we just chat on. Life is as complex as it is artificial. Let's enjoy life as it is.

Cheers :thumbsup:
Contaxable...
Heee, ashleigh's my new pretty girl, she has a natural flair for posing in front of the camera. :lovegrin:
 

jdredd

New Member
Mar 30, 2006
1,266
0
0
#40
reading these posts, i cant help but recall that saying... a little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing.

wailenong, i dont know where you picked up this knowledge from, but frankly, no one is interested, nor impressed, and secondly, your views on what the "law" is are in any event riddled with inaccuracies..

the most ironic thing is, you never even went on this shoot. and i havent heard a single complaint from anyone who did, that they felt they did not get their money's worth.

so why don't you go back to your law books and leave us to enjoy our shoots..
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom