egafd.com

If HiWatt is on billable hours, or overtime rates, this thread is costing Bluebird a bundle.

That should cheer up a few people

Now you are really making it up ! Try reading Peninsula Business Services v Sweeny [2004] and you will see that.

Thank you for acknowledging that my knowledge is superior.

Why would a CG rationally want to throw away a year's royalties, just to earn ?300 from a shoot ?

And, why would she want to have to repay all her advances ?

That case related to the payment of commission earned but not due for payment.

It specifically DOES NOT have any bearing on restrictive clauses. In fact the judgement implies that if there had been any restraint issues, it would have gone the other way, (or why mention it?).

"The EAT also dismissed the tribunal's suggestion that the relevant terms were unfair, whether for the purposes of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 or otherwise. The onerous commission penalty suffered by Mr. Sweeney on resignation did not arise under a contractual term involving an unlawful restraint of trade. There was no contractual restriction as to where he might work or what he might do after leaving Peninsula."

If rationality means NOT upsetting the apple cart, there isn't a problem.

I accepted my restraint without argument because it paid well.

A years royalties - why give it up? Good question. For a ?300 shoot? No. For ?600-?1000 a week for a girl with her head screwed on from a combination of modelling and dancing and PAs and what have you, yes. For most girls between the two, depends. It would certainly be irrational to drop royalties for an alternative not decently higher.

What is a years royalities?

But what is amusing is the way you've changed the subject. Worried about the clause?

If you are, then the CG can have her cake and eat it because the loss of the restraint clause would kill anything dependent on it, so she would be free AND able to collect her royalties AND not have to repay advances....

Still, the detail needs a lawyer for the CG to look at the contract.

Remember, we are only talking about girls in their 12 month post BB shooting phase. I have no quibble with you re CG girls while they are being paid their regular fee and shooting.

Oh yeah - that's why Eva won Best Star at last year's AVN's.

"But what is amusing is the way you've changed the subject": how can I have changed the subject when it's your post I'm answering ?

A post-CG girl can challenge the clause as much as she wants. If she wins, she loses her royalties and has to repay all her contractual advances on account of royalties. If she loses, then we don't have to pay royalties and we can have our advances back, since she has repudiated the contract.

You see, we've been working out the law, and practice for 3 years on this. Whereas, it's all new to forumites. So you'd expect us to have the answers.

Anyway - thanks for contributing. Our booking agents use your site & it performs a good service