• 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

Ziggurat said:
Why would that be relevant to the contract terms? I doubt it would be, though again, the contract terms aren’t public.

If this guy broke the contract, he may be on the hook for monetary damages (again, depending on the terms of the contract). That wouldn’t necessarily mean he’s on the hook for a million, though. Trial could find him liable but for a smaller amount.
Click to expand...
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.
 
bruto said:
It's more than just a change of name, though. There's a fairly convincing argument that the change was actually illegal
Click to expand...
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.
bruto said:
It seems endemic for right wing apologists to take every instance of anything as unique and unrelated to anything else.
Click to expand...
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.
bruto said:
You might manage to argue that a mere change of the name on the building doesn't do anything
Click to expand...
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.
 
Ziggurat said:
Why would that be relevant to the contract terms? I doubt it would be, though again, the contract terms aren’t public.

If this guy broke the contract, he may be on the hook for monetary damages (again, depending on the terms of the contract). That wouldn’t necessarily mean he’s on the hook for a million, though. Trial could find him liable but for a smaller amount.
Click to expand...
Just in case you missed it Zig.
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. But of course, you're right it depends on the language of the documents.

Adding Trump's name changes everything. The artist, not the Center might even be entitled to damages.
By adding the name Trump to the Arts Center they have sullied the brand. It went from being a prestigious brand that added to the pedigree of the artist to a brand that detracted from it. It's like thinking the venue is Tiffany's and instead in reality finding out after the fact that no, it wasn't Tiffany's. It was Walmart. I'm sure you can appreciate someone wanting to be associated with JFK and not wanting to be associated with Trump.

The board is responsible for this regrettable incident. Not the artist.

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 when they changed the name.
 
Last edited:
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.
Click to expand...
Because, the artist has no desire to be associated with Trump. Doh! This IS a material difference. And if anything the board is responsible for the problem. Not the artist. They changed the conditions of the contract unbeknownst to the artist.

Ziggurat said:
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...
It DOES! The artist was under the impression his contract was with something prestigious. Not with some low life POS. If he signed a contract with Donald J Trump Performing Art Center, he would have chosen to have such an association and the contract would be enforceable. By changing the name, you're demanding he be associated with someone he doesn't want to be associated with.
 
Ziggurat said:
What you desire is rarely ever a material part of a contract.
Click to expand...
You're right. It isn't. The name of the venue is almost never material. The difference between 123 Arena and 321 Arena is meaningless.

But it is absurd to think this is meaningless. I see it as an honor to me to be associated with JFK. And I don't want anything to do with honoring Trump.

Are you saying I don't have such a right? That this isn't a reasonable consideration?
 
acbytesla said:
Just in case you missed it Zig.
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...
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.
acbytesla said:
Adding Trump's name changes everything.
Click to expand...
It probably doesn't change anything about the contract.
acbytesla said:
I'm sure you can appreciate someone wanting to be associated with JFK and not wanting to be associated with Trump.
Click to expand...
I can, but you don't get to unilaterally bail from contracts just because what you want changes.
acbytesla said:
And it is totally fine if the artist is making a political statement. He has every right to do so.
Click to expand...
Quite so. But his right to make a political statement doesn't void his contract obligations. And that obligation cuts both ways. If Redd had made anti-Trump public statements, the board would not be entitled to violate the contract by cancelling his performance and not paying him either (unless the contract permitted such cancellations). So don't mistake my position as saying it's OK to punish political expression. My position isn't about political expression. It's about contract law and contract obligations.

Unless the terms of the contract permitted Redd to cancel his appearance, then he's in breach and likely owes something (though again, maybe not $1 million).
 
Ziggurat said:
What you desire is rarely ever a material part of a contract.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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...
Actually, not all that much. Great. Why not? A party shouldn't be able to void a contract if they change the name, but they should have every right to if the other party does.
Ziggurat said:
It probably doesn't change anything about the contract.
Click to expand...
Of course it does. It is a material difference in the contract.
Ziggurat said:
I can, but you don't get to unilaterally bail from contracts just because what you want changes.
Click to expand...
You're right. You shouldn't. But it is the board that made changes in the contract.
Ziggurat said:
Quite so. But his right to make a political statement doesn't void his contract obligations. And that obligation cuts both ways. If Redd had made anti-Trump public statements, the board would not be entitled to violate the contract by cancelling his performance and not paying him either (unless the contract permitted such cancellations). So don't mistake my position as saying it's OK to punish political expression. My position isn't about political expression. It's about contract law and contract obligations.
Click to expand...
Of course it is. You think it is fine for the board to make a political statement. But the artist should be prevented from making one.
Ziggurat said:
Unless the terms of the contract permitted Redd to cancel his appearance, then he's in breach and likely owes something (though again, maybe not $1 million).
Click to expand...
His contract wasn't with the Donald J Trump Performing Center. They are the ones changing the terms without the artist's assent.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
Last edited:
acbytesla said:
It's not what I desire, it is the desires of the person who agrees to a contract.
Click to expand...
The desires of the person who agrees to the contract don't matter either. Only the terms of the contract matter.
acbytesla said:
They agree to the terms of the contract.
Click to expand...
Indeed, Redd did. So if the contract doesn't allow him to unilaterally bail, then he's in breach.
acbytesla said:
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...
That doesn't matter.
 
acbytesla said:
I think proof of the materiality of the name change will be seen in the upcoming year.
Click to expand...
The name change is only material if the terms of the contract make it material. Which is rather unlikely.
acbytesla said:
This won't be the only artist who will choose not to perform there.
Click to expand...
Artists are free to not sign contracts because of the name change (or for any other reason). But even if no artists ever sign a contract there again, tat does Redd no good, since he already signed a contract.
acbytesla said:
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...
Completely irrelevant to Redd's contractual obligations.
 
TragicMonkey said:
Probably that's a question for a court case to answer. Appearance and PR are critical factors to performing arts, which applies to both sides in this particular contest.
Click to expand...
Neither is critical to contract obligations.
 
Ziggurat said:
The name change is only material if the terms of the contract make it material. Which is rather unlikely
Click to expand...
It is material because the agreement was with a party he wanted to be associated with to a party he didn't.
Ziggurat said:
Artists are free to not sign contracts because of the name change (or for any other reason). But even if no artists ever sign a contract there again, tat does Redd no good, since he already signed a contract.
Click to expand...
Total nonsense. He signed a contract with a specific party, Not just any party.
Ziggurat said:
Completely irrelevant to Redd's contractual obligations.
Click to expand...
But it is totally relevant to the Performing Arts Center's contractual obligations with the artist. They are the one's breaking the terms of the contract.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom