ITG

This question is deep. Also 10/10 times when someone would ask you "why are you here", it was usually a disagreeable situation. This is the First time the question has been presented in a lighthearted manner that I can remember.

Please don't make the poll public. I had to delete my vote.

For now, I'll say I'm bored.

bands create partnership agreements to govern the band. nobody is hiring anybody. nobody is buying or selling anything. you're establishing the terms of your partnership. MOAs are typically used to create a band's partnership agreement because you are establishing the terms of your working relationship, not agreeing to a specific business transaction.

a band signs a contract with a record label. a band signs a partnership agreement with each other.

This kind of the opposite of what you are saying. I'm going to be honest and assume you didn't know what consideration in a contract was until 5 minutes ago and just started reading a textbook definition you found on-line.

MSL doesn't appear to have known what he was talking about but tried his very best to sound like he did, even sounding like a proselytizing Grandpa tryin' to give us an education.

Way to try to save face man.

You seem to be confused about what a contract is. A contract is a contract. It doesn't matter if it is called an Agreement, or a Memorandum of Agreement, or a Contract, or nothing at all. If a promise is made, and consideration is given, a contract exists. I won't bore you with the details of the Statute of Frauds, but suffice it to say, that when dealing with issues of this monetary value (any GnR related contract), such an agreement must be in writing.

Actually it is you that is confused. It's called a partnership agreement for a reason. The parties are not making any transaction. Neither is hiring the other. Neither is buying or selling anything. They're agreeing how they're going to split future revenue, what happens if someone leaves, etc. So you keep harping on lack of consideration, but it's actually you that has a lack of understanding.

If we draw up a contract that states I will buy your radish for $0, it may be deemed unenforceable as I did not offer anything in exchange for your radish.

If we draw up a partnership agreement that states we will work together to grow radishes and that if I leave I get to keep the farming equipment, I'm not obligated to offer anything specific in exchange for the farming equipment. The entire point of the agreement is to establish how our joint assets will be divided. Unless one partner is not being compensated in any way whatsoever, I don't see how your lack of consideration claim would have any merit. Considering the agreement bumped Slash's cut of revenue up to 33 1/3 and Duff's up to 30 1/3, I'd say all involved received consideration.

As for the other person confused by the September 1 date, the 1992 partnership agreement established what to do with revenue from 9/1 onward, but was not signed until October.

Post the rest of the contract.

Also everything said by the guy you are quoting is technically true. You have no grounds really to call him confused.

And don't put your watermark emblem on it either. No one really wants to know you exist as much as you do.

Can anyone verify it was Slash and Duff that entered it into the 2004 lawsuit and not the other way around? Ultimately we're just relying on other people's claims.

I see. So duff could easily have been presented with a document in Barcelona that we're not seeing.

The leap of faith is to assume this is the only and final document dealing with ownership of the name.

Exactly.

I have actual footage of Axl acquiring the GN'R name:

Consideration is actually very important because without it in the contract from both sides, it is just a piece of paper. There must have been something there but until someone posts the rest no one will know. No one really cares at this point. Any journalist could have done the same thing here but it is old news. It would be funny though if Axl's contract turned out to be just a piece of paper though.

In theory, if I said, 'I owe UK Subs 50 Monopoly Pounds' and signed it, that is a legally binding document

If I did not pay it, UK Subs could sue me, and I would be liable for the 50 Monopoly Pounds, interest as set by the court, loss of earnings and UK Subs expenses (court and travel expenses,, not hairdresser fees or his gem encrusted onesies from Regent Street)

Lol. It's pointed out in one of the pics posted before that there are fundamental requirements to a lawsuit contract which includes "consideration" from both sides. Warren Buffett could promise to give all his money to his kids when he dies and then decides not to on his deathbed. He could even make that agreement in writing. It still wouldn't be a contract unless the agreement involved his kids giving up consideration too. That's one of the mysteries about all this, and until MSL posts the whole thing or someone walks to the courthouse it won't be known. What did Axl give up in exchange for the name? Originally the rumored "consideration" that Axl gave was to continue the tour. You'd have to look at the whole document or documents to see what went down.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/consideration

Edit. I wrote lawsuit when I meant contract.

Fernando is managing planner (or sometimes a planning manager).

He's just saying words. Don't know what the big deal is.

I hope metaforcesaber doesn't see this thread. It would split him in two.

I think being frozen in carbonite makes Han Solo the coolest.

Han Solo wins by a country parsec.

I can go all day folks

Which members (past or present) could probably have a successful career without having any association or referencing GN'R? Buckethead comes to mind. Slash too (he barely references them ever). Steven Adler probably not but he keeps the dream alive.

RIP. I remember him talking about him in one of the video chats. Condolences.

This is old news. I'm a really big fan of reality TV. I already heard about this specific cheating scandal on "Housewives of..."

...wait...what? WTF?

 

Not really. I posted a list of Axl Rose lawsuits and a timeline of the 2005 lawsuit. That was from the California courts. Anyone can do that. MSL in my opinion was just looking for an avenue to publicly post his moniker. It protracts his immortality in his mind or something.

You posted a... "list"? Did you actually go to the court house? Or did you just compile various documents you found on the internet? Hitman actually went through the process and physically retrieved the documents from their source. Since the issue at hand is something that is often debated by hardcore fans, having actual documents pertaining to the issue does constitute great investigative journalism.

Got a credit card and some free time? Knock yourself out:

https://www.lasuperiorcourt.org/OnlineServices/CivilImages/

There's probably a cheaper and easier way to do it now. I got the list a few years ago.

Not really. I posted a list of Axl Rose lawsuits and a timeline of the 2005 lawsuit. That was from the California courts. Anyone can do that. MSL in my opinion was just looking for an avenue to publicly post his moniker. It protracts his immortality in his mind or something.

Signatures are signatures. On plain paper, that is enough in the UK

It is great investigative journalism, let's see the story pushed out there to the wider media. Let them have their take, and MSL have another moment in the sun.

Great investigative journalism? He posted docs probably publicly available from a courthouse in CA, saturated with an emblem of his persona. Let's not get carried away. MSL is someone ostentatious enough to make you want to forget about him.

You're basing your statement on the supposition that Axl would've had to give some consideration in order for this to be a contract/a legally binding agreement.

Ali

O_O

Never mind. Just never mind. LOL.

I think people should reflect on what I believe Marc Canter said, that Doug Goldstein was crying on the phone speaking with him about the things he did. You think he's crying because he forgot to send a birthday card to Slash and Duff? Stuff did happen.

The fundamental flaw in this contract would be that consideration had to be exchanged for their to be a real contract. Axl would have had to give up something in order for Slash and Duff to relinquish the rights to the name else that isn't really a contract, no matter the statue of limitations. You can't sign a contract where you give up something for free. I'd really like to see the rest of the contract to see what was agreed upon. Probably somebody local in CA could get it at the courthouse.

Doug Goldstein's regret could've been due to any one of a number of incidents. There's no way to know that it was in relation to this issue.

I can't find where he posted it but I remember Marc mentioning crying or tears or something like that. He alluded to this conversation here as well and the topic at hand was the "name":

http://www.mygnrforum.com/index.php?/topic/194694-doug-goldstein/

http://www.mygnrforum.com/index.php?/topic/194922-axls-legal-takeover/#entry3269336

I don't see how what you claim is a "flaw" is a flaw that in any way, shape or form would undermine the validity of the contract. If Slash and Duff were o.k. with Axl in taking the name in the event that the partnership ever dissolved, it may have been due to lack of foresight or a lack of belief that it would ever come to that.

Ali

I don't think you really know what you know what I am pointing out. If a contract doesn't have the fundamentals of being a contract then it isn't a contract. No consideration on both sides, no contract. I was just questioning what else was there in the overall contract. Your response actually was actually a random tangent and unrelated to what I was saying. You can put quotation marks around the word "flaw" to be dismissive. Whatever.

I think people should reflect on what I believe Marc Canter said, that Doug Goldstein was crying on the phone speaking with him about the things he did. You think he's crying because he forgot to send a birthday card to Slash and Duff? Stuff did happen.

The fundamental flaw in this contract would be that consideration had to be exchanged for their to be a real contract. Axl would have had to give up something in order for Slash and Duff to relinquish the rights to the name else that isn't really a contract, no matter the statue of limitations. You can't sign a contract where you give up something for free. I'd really like to see the rest of the contract to see what was agreed upon. Probably somebody local in CA could get it at the courthouse.

The statute of limitations is 4 years for written contracts in California currently. MSL doesn't mention this at all in his thread. Axl never mentioned it either. Slash and Duff still remained with Axl's band through 1996. It would have been too late then even if it was under duress. I believe that was essentially the issue. I think MSL could have mentioned it in his very detailed post. I don't see why he would omit it.

http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/statute-of-limitations-state-laws-chart-29941.html

Well the contract certainly validates what Duff alleged. He still have full equity in the band. It's kind of what I presumed. Axl obtained future use rights to the name but he didn't control Guns N' Roses 100% outright. He couldn't compete against Duff and Slash's interest. When Axl went against Activision for using Slash imagery he may have been going beyond the scope of what he acquired in this contract.

This was item (f) of a long list of legalese to read through. Slash and Duff had no way to know the repercussions for the future. Lawyers and Managers acting in their interests were not present when this was signed. The scienter in all this appears to fall on Axl.

In my opinion the reality of the shift and the public embarrassment and ridicule by others (which included a lot of not so on the level business types he was associating with at the time) for not contesting the rights to the brand name, were more than Slash could openly face. Also we arent lawyers or formally business educated so it was just a matter of all of us being naïve and doing what we thought was right at the time. Slash was imo being on the up and up in agreeing I had the rights and I wasnt trying to be some snake in the grass pulling a fast one. The others couldve cared less.

I don't know how Axl can claim to have been Naive given the circumstances. He's feigning ignorance in all this.