Charlize Theron sued

[kateelle]

Ctv:

NEW YORK -- Swiss watchmaker Raymond Weil has filed a breach of contract lawsuit against Oscar-winning actress Charlize Theron.

In court papers filed late Monday in state Supreme Court, Weil said Theron signed an endorsement deal saying that from October 2005 through December 2006 she would only wear Weil's high-end watches.

That deal allowed Weil to use Theron's photographs in its advertisements in exchange for "substantial funds," court papers said.

Meanwhile, Theron had an endorsement deal to promote a Dior perfume, Weil's lawsuit said. The 31-year-old actress "was actually photographed wearing a watch from the Christian Dior line" at a March 14, 2006, news conference at a film festival in Austin, Texas, court papers said. A photo of her wearing the watch is included as an exhibit.

"Although the agreement clearly prohibits (Theron) from appearing in any advertisement for any jewelry, even for charity, she appeared wearing a necklace in an advertisement benefiting an AIDS charity, violating the agreement, from February 2006 to December 2006," the court papers said.

"Plaintiffs were led to believe and had a right to believe by their written agreement that (Theron) would not promote jewelry or watches."

A spokeswoman for Theron didn't immediately return a call Tuesday from The Associated Press.

The lawsuit doesn't say how much Weil is seeking in damages, but the watchmaker's lawyer, David Jaroslawicz, said his client had spent more than $20 million on the Theron advertising campaign.

dlisted

 

[vmob84]

wow that's pretty low that he's protesting that she appeared in a charity advertisment wearing a necklace sold for charity.

 

[mellowdrama]

You know, I was just about to buy a $100,000 Weil watch because the an ad I saw of Charlize in Vanity Fair. However, when I saw the picture of Charlize in a Dior necklace, I gnawed off my left hand and wrist in bewildered frustration. Now I can easily spend twice my income on a watch, but I do have a budget to keep.

Now, not only do I not know what time it is, but I can no longer pleasure myself in the way I am accustomed, and Paul McCartney continues to spurn my attentions. Can anyone recommend a good attorney?

 

[vmob84]

 

[Laska]

Poor Charlize, I hope she gets this silly thing resolved!

 

[VainJane]

Eh....if she signed that contract stating that she would only wear their jewelry/watches in advertisements and they gave her money (probably a buttload) then I think Charlize is at fault. That's what happens when you sign a contract-- you agree to abide by the rules the company put-forth. While forbiding someone from wearing charity jewelry might not be the most noble thing to do, apparently no one forced Charlize to sign that contract-- if it's a legal contract that she knew what she was getting into when she signed it.

Based on what I read in this article I feel that Charlize is the guilty party

 

[kissmesweet]

Charlize will pull through. She's amaaaaaaaaaazing!

 

[Tushka_BeLLa]

How trivial ....

 

[kateelle]

There was very similar case like this involving Jessica Simpson as well. She failed to wear the labels jeans out in public and was sued for $100 million. Seriously, be freaking reasonable, they are busy people who cannot be conscious of what they're supposed to be promoting at all times. I think this is just so sleazy...how much more publicity can they get now?

 

[splatooey]

^ i disagree, if someone is paying you MILLIONS of dollars to wear their merchandise that you didnt even pay for, you should get fined...why should companies have to put up with this kind of behavior, its a business contract, and if you dont think you can handle the terms, don't sign the contract, its very simple.

 

[kateelle]

Disagree all you want it was for a CHARITY, please, how childish/petty can you get.

 

[VainJane]

Disagree all you want it was for a CHARITY, please, how childish/petty can you get.

Just reading what the article says, Charlize was photographed wearing a necklace for the AIDS charity AND was also photographed wearing a Dior watch during a news conference at a film festival (there is no mention that the watch was for charity). Both violated the contract, as stated by the article, so even if she was allowed to wear jewelry for charity she would still be violating the contract because she wore the Dior watch.

My personal opinion is that if the article is correct (and Charlize knew the limitations of the agreement) then by signing that jewelry contract Charlize was agreeing with the childish/petty statement that she wouldn't wear jewelry for charity. I guess millions of dollars makes it a lot easier

Of course that's just my opinion.

 

[mellowdrama]

^Gotta agree, a contract's a contract. Just recently a company headhunted me for contractual work, knowing full well that I already had my own private massage practice, then emailed me a "non-compete" contract to sign. Had I signed, the terms I would've agreed to would've effectively enabled these folks to sue me for having my own private practice. Idiot's bargain.

 

[justlooking]

^ i disagree, if someone is paying you MILLIONS of dollars to wear their merchandise that you didnt even pay for, you should get fined...why should companies have to put up with this kind of behavior, its a business contract, and if you dont think you can handle the terms, don't sign the contract, its very simple.

I agree.

 

[cric-croc]

true

 

[splatooey]

Disagree all you want it was for a CHARITY, please, how childish/petty can you get.

if you were the company shelling out the millions, i'm sure you wouldn't think it was petty. or maybe you just like getting ripped off...

 

[Ungaro Kitty]

If she can't stand the heat she should stay out of the kitchen.

Sheesh these spoiled brats think they can shun the legal obligations to which they've signed their names? I hope they learn their lesson.

 

[*Princesse*]

Charlize had signed a contract, so she basically is at fault in the whole deal. Of course, this is trivial to begin with, and I doubt anyone thinks less of Charlize because she wore a Dior watch, but that doesn't cause the contract to be any less binding. Placing this clause into the contract may have been childish, but signing and breaking said contract was inviting this by that point.

 

[*mette-marit*]

She was photographed wearing a Dior watch at a film festival. that wasn't for charity. she's an idiot. she signed a deal worth millions to only wear this companys watches, then she goes ahead and just does something else? what kind of idiot 'forgets' the legal contract they signed and are getting paid a shitload for?

 

[sanura]

Agree

One must honor the binding of the contract... I wish I have millions that are handed to me for wearing free watches and making public appearances at prestige charity functions... honestly, those charity events are like Oscar parties. Every detail are carefully planned, I think she should have been more considerate.