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.