Holbytla wrote:
Ok I'll ask a few specific questions.
They're good questions.
Quote:
Tolkien sold the movie rights to LOTR long ago to UA. Obviously when New Line acquired the rights, they were bound to the original contract. Where, if anywhere, are the details of the original contract listed?
That's really the essence of the problem that I have. The contracts should be attached to the Complaint, or at the very least, quoted at length. Instead, they include these brief, self-serving statements about what these complicated contracts say. I find that very suspicious. Obviously, the various parties have copies of the contracts, but I am not aware of any place where they are publicly available.
Quote:
What are the statute of limitations of a breach of contract suit? Seems this is kind of long in the tooth no? Certainly the Tolkien Estate made a discovery of not getting their money and the clock must have started ticking a while ago.
Under California law, the statute of limitations for breach of a written contract is four years. However, the contract apparently specifies that New York law applies, and a quick google search reveals that the SOL for breach of contracts in New York is six years. Plus, if there really has been settlement negotiations going on, the plaintiffs could argue that the statute of limitations has been "tolled" during the time that has been happening.
Quote:
Can it be construed the the Estate is using this late filing date to their advantage, and is putting New Line in an unfair disadvantage? The timing of this is failrly suspect.
I agree that the timing is suspect. But what we don't know is to what extent either side has been negotiating in good faith. It could be that the plaintiff have truly been trying to resolve this, couldn't get it done, and had to file because the statute of limitations was going to run.
Quote:
The movie rights to the Hobbit are different than those from LOTR. Where, if anywhere, are the details of the this contract listed?
My understanding (soli will correct me if I am wrong) is that they were sold together in the same contracts.