ccwjjandy 2008-7-29 20:23
支持梁洛施
支持梁洛施, 打贏英皇.....
peninsula 2008-7-29 22:06
[quote]原帖由 [i]ccwjjandy[/i] 於 2008-7-29 20:23 發表 [url=http://forum.timway.com/f/redirect.php?goto=findpost&pid=4999425&ptid=208353][img]http://forum.timway.com/f/images/common/back.gif[/img][/url]
支持梁洛施, 打贏英皇..... [/quote]
Why? She broke contract.:o
runaway 2008-7-29 22:35
其實英皇公司同時下既香港經理人公司一樣,將藝人當搖錢樹,一d都唔識去搞好自己既藝人. 單睇英皇公司處理當年霆峰既車禍,不過係一單醉酒駕車竟然變成頂包案,阿嬌事件一開始就死口話係合成相,之後又改說法,完全證明英皇藝人公司既當權人全部係一班死蠢...isabella事件我雖然就知不多, 但我都希望佢打羸場官司.
ccwjjandy 2008-7-30 00:13
因為我好５鍾意英皇ＢＯＳＳ一５鍾意Ｄ人就打人
COO 2008-7-30 18:13
大家早早都知英皇咩野料啦，梁洛施阿媽咪一樣簽約，為咩唧？因為有機會嗎！現在都確實因為有合約在先，所以英皇就肯投資係佢身上。結果亦係有好開展。
衹不過係梁洛施現在有條件反骨啫。如果冇咁大背景撐住，佢早就歸邊啦！
所以，因為英皇既形象差就去支持梁洛施，我有保留。
soniceee 2008-8-1 13:40
[quote]原帖由 [i]COO[/i] 於 2008-7-30 10:13 發表 [url=http://forum.timway.com/f/redirect.php?goto=findpost&pid=5006072&ptid=208353][img]http://forum.timway.com/f/images/common/back.gif[/img][/url]大家早早都知英皇咩野料啦，梁洛施阿媽咪一樣簽約，為咩唧？因為有機會嗎！現在都確實因為有合約在先，所以英皇就肯投資係佢身上。結果亦係有好開展。衹不過係梁洛施現在有條件反骨啫。如果冇咁大背景撐住，佢早 ... [/quote]
Well said, we all know what 英皇 is made of; however, that doesn't alter the fact that she broke her contract :lol
NWA 2008-8-10 07:23
what if she does break the contract, so what? if the contract does not have mutual respect in it, damn right she can break the contract. we all know what kind of man the boss of emperor is. he is a thud. even though isabella signed a contract with the emperor group, she can go ahead break it if she is not respected as a human being. we have rule of law in the society. Triads should go and eat yourself behind bars. dont come out here and pretend you are some sort of tycoons and successful business. the whole emperor entertainment is a joke. even their hotels, securities, and watches all businesses are a joke. bunch of crooks. dirty dealings.
COO 2008-8-12 14:25
個 industry 既遊戲規則行內人大家都知。食得咸魚就預左口渴。
如果真的有一方未有履行或違反合約條款，當然可以告違約的一方。但，但不等於另一方因此有權不履行合約的其他條約。
NWA 2008-8-13 00:50
true.if one goes into this industry, one should admits the negative that attaches.so by definition is a grey area in the first place. if is a grey area in the first place why would some pretenders set out 'contracts' in the playing field? Well, maybe is a house of incompetent nursing homes convicts want to pretend they are some sort of legit entertainment business empire that still has influences in the society but actually they are so outdated and trash their so called stars and productions are landfills. If one line in a contract that is illegal in nature makes the rest of the contract voids instantly.
peninsula 2008-8-13 22:27
[quote]原帖由 [i]NWA[/i] 於 2008-8-13 00:50 發表 [url=http://forum.timway.com/f/redirect.php?goto=findpost&pid=5095724&ptid=208353][img]http://forum.timway.com/f/images/common/back.gif[/img][/url]
true.if one goes into this industry, one should admits the negative that attaches.so by definition is a grey area in the first place. if is a grey area in the first place why would some pretenders set ... [/quote]
Are you a lawyer?;P:wondering:
COO 2008-8-14 13:57
[quote]原帖由 [i]NWA[/i] 於 2008-8-13 00:50 發表 [url=http://forum.timway.com/f/redirect.php?goto=findpost&pid=5095724&ptid=208353][img]http://forum.timway.com/f/images/common/back.gif[/img][/url]
If one line in a contract that is illegal in nature makes the rest of the contract voids instantly. [/quote]
當然，如果 contract 涉及 undue influence 情況下簽訂，又或者本身要求做的 acts / performance 係不合法時，該 contract 既 enforcebility 就會有問題，當中的 parties未必因為有損失或出現有違約情況下能提出索償，因為 to begin with，法庭唔會承認該合同既合法性。