4 ms·
> The court found that even if all allegations in her complaint were taken to be true, they still would not establish that Warner Brothers was bound by that con
by radisb 12y ago
> The court found that even if all allegations in her complaint were taken to be true, they still would not establish that Warner Brothers was bound by that contract.
So it is possible that:
1) X sells rights to Y, having Y commit to obligations in exchange.
2) Z acquires Y.
3) Z now has the rights but not the obligations.
WTF?
- Anderkent 12y agoI'd guess they either don't have the rights, or don't have the obligations. If you're suing for breech of contract, you'd have to show they have the obligations; if you're suing for infridgement, you have to show they don't have the right.
- rasz_pl 12y agomoney baby, money, loooots of money
- rhino369 12y agoYes, but that is not really the point here. Her attorney didn't describe with enough detail why WB was on the hook. The court dismissed it, but they are allowed to fix it and go on. This is a really standard litigation issue. It isn't a big deal.