Jump to content

Pharrell Sued over Youtube show


jarrylf
 Share

Recommended Posts

Pharrell Williams' "Voice" could cost him a million dollars.

Mr. Happy is being sued by the producer of his uber-successful YouTube show, "ARTST TLK"  .... featuring interviews with big celebs like Spike Lee, Usher and Tony Hawk. The 12 episodes of Season 1 were huge ... scoring a total of more than 1.7 million views.

But the producer says he got big footed when "The Voice" came along and asked Pharrell to join the judge's panel for Season 7. According to the lawsuit -- obtained by TMZ -- Pharrell told him to pound sand, saying "The Voice" made an exclusive deal so he couldn't do the YouTube show.

Pharrell was kind of insulting, writing the YouTube producer, "Holding me to a contract that prohibits 'The Voice' exclusivity requirement?  It's 'The Voice!'"  Translation, I can't do your stupid little show.

The YouTube producer says he invested a million bucks in the project and wants Pharrell to pay.

Pharrell's rep tells TMZ ... "This is complete nonsense. It's unfortunate when you try to help a friend and they wind up trying to take advantage of you."

Read more: http://www.tmz.com/2014/08/20/pharrell-williams-youtube-show-the-voice-lawsuit-artst-tlk/#ixzz3Az0grk7H

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And he should get sued. A contract is a contract! You don't get to pick and choose what contract you fulfill the obligations to without any consequences becuz your disregard for an agreement is costing someone else money.

Businesswise I get why Pharrell would opt out but morally its wrong and displays lack of integrity. But hey...that's on him. And that was a snobby ass response from Pharrell. Not nice

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know that in the UK a verbal agreement does stand as a contract as long as it can be proved. I believe it is the same in the US. If so then YouTube guru better have some form of proof... and Pharrell himself alludes to a contract between the two in his response so guru may win?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe if Youtube guru and Pharrell had an agreement to a second season verbally it is equivalent  to signing a contract :unsure:

 

Pre-Law/Law majors please correct me if I'm wrong 

 

Either a verbal or written agreement will be viewed as a contract as long as there was offer, mutual assent, consideration and no contractual defenses (i.e. duress or fraud). A writing does not make something a contract. Those components make an agreement a contract. 

 

If an agreement of that sort was not made or an agreement was made but it lacks consideration (i.e. Pharrell agreed to do the show but Pharrell received no consideration then such an agreement will not be upheld in the United States court of law. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Either a verbal or written agreement will be viewed as a contract as long as there was offer, mutual assent, consideration and no contractual defenses (i.e. duress or fraud). A writing does not make something a contract. Those components make an agreement a contract. 

 

If an agreement of that sort was not made or an agreement was made but it lacks consideration (i.e. Pharrell agreed to do the show but Pharrell received no consideration then such an agreement will not be upheld in the United States court of law. 

Yeah! I remember some things from my pre-law random ass class.. Thanks!

 

So if Pharrell agreed verbally to do a second season or whatever... Then backs out, granted there is proof, He can be taken to court. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Huh ??? Why would him Being close to JT irk you ??

 

I think he is a serial appropriator of black culture who only indulges in the culture when it's convienet for him and distances himself when it's not.  (i.e. this latest incident when he basically called Madonna the n word; then turned to ferguson for sympathy) I have absolutely no tolerance for such shenanigans from any white person -- let alone someone who makes millions off doing it.  Thus, I am not here in any way for JT and that includes any African-American relationship that he has that allows him to continue his serial appropriating. 

 

Yeah! I remember some things from my pre-law random ass class.. Thanks!

 

So if Pharrell agreed verbally to do a second season or whatever... Then backs out, granted there is proof, He can be taken to court. 

 

Yes. As long as there was consideration.  If he's like Pharell be a pal and do this show for me it will really help my career out and Pharrell agrees then it is likely that will not be a contract that can be upheld.  However, if he says hey Pharrell, I have this really cool idea for a show for you to host and I will pay you x amount of dollars or I will not sue you for that copyright infringement case I have against you or the show will really help with your popularity (or basically something of benefit to Pharrell) then yes, Pharrell can be taken to court and be forced to pay damages.  Courts generally do not require the enforcement of personal service contracts because of obvious reasons (slavery/indentured servitude/if you try to force someone to do a job they don't want to do it will be a shitty end product can cause more lawsuits etc.) 

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So if Pharrell agreed verbally to do a second season or whatever... Then backs out, granted there is proof, He can be taken to court. 

 

First and foremost, you can not take anyone to court and enforce a verbal contract. Secondly, unless Phinerell's John Hancock is on any paper from the YouTuber, then he has no contractual obligation to fulfill a request from a fan. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First and foremost, you can not take anyone to court and enforce a verbal contract. Secondly, unless Phinerell's John Hancock is on any paper from the YouTuber, then he has no contractual obligation to fulfill a request from a fan. 

 

This is not true as aforementioned. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First and foremost, you can not take anyone to court and enforce a verbal contract. Secondly, unless Phinerell's John Hancock is on any paper from the YouTuber, then he has no contractual obligation to fulfill a request from a fan.

There is a such thing as a thing as legally binding verbal contract

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...