Contracts Legal Questions

The answer to your question depends on certain variable elements regarding the item depicted. For the most part courts rely heavily on Rogers v. Grimaldi -- which is focused on publicity rights, but has a Lanham Act (copyright law) component as well. The court ruled that the First Amendment issue trumps all, and the "likelihood of confusion" here is minimal as well, but takes a back seat to the First Amendment concerns: In this case, we readily conclude that Moore’s paintings, prints, and calendars are protected under the Rogers test. The depiction of the University’s uniforms in the content of these items is artistically relevant to the expressive underlying works because the uniforms’ colors and designs are needed for a realistic portrayal of famous scenes from Alabama football history. Also there is no evidence that Moore ever marketed an unlicensed item as “endorsed” or “sponsored” by the University, or otherwise explicitly stated that such items were affiliated with the University. Moore’s paintings, prints, and calendars very clearly are embodiments of artistic expression, and are entitled to full First Amendment protection. The extent of his use of the University’s trademarks is their mere inclusion (their necessary inclusion) in the body of the image which Moore creates to memorialize and enhance a particular play or event in the University’s football history. Even if “some members of the public would draw the incorrect inference that [the University] had some involvement with [Moore’s paintings, prints, and calendars,] . . . that risk of misunderstanding, not engendered by any overt [or in this case even implicit] claim . . . is so outweighed by the interest in artistic expression as to preclude” any violation of the Lanham Act. Rogers, 875 F.2d at 1001. I hope this helps you with some of the issues, legal and artistic. Feel free to contact us for further information.  203.870.6700... Read Answer

With minor exceptions that don't seem applicable here, once a gift is given it belongs to the donee.  The problem is that your neighbor may claim that he didn't give you a gift.  For example, he may claim that he only agreed to lend you the controller until you had time to get your own, or some other story where it wasn't an unconditional gift.  There is no guarantee who the  Court will believe if he sues you (which I very much doubt; it isn't worth the hassle and expense over this minor dispute).... Read Answer

Unfortunately, you odd-ball work hours are not the LL concern in a mutli unit housing environment. Why? Making you happy pisses everyone else off with work performed at midnight. As the odd man out - you will have to adapt and when your lease is up move somewhere else more accomodating. ... Read Answer

As the saying goes, no good deed goes unpunished. Given that you have your text messages, it seems you can certainly prove your friend requested you withdraw the money. Proving your friend received it may be more difficult, but a good lawyer should be able to help build a good defense for you. You may possibly have a counterclaim against her for all the monies you spent, although that will be more difficult, since those expenditures will likely be viewed as gifts.  ... Read Answer

Typically you don't "trade in" a vehicle and THEN go get custom things off of it. You either take them off BEFORE you give up possession or you take them off when the vehicle is being appraised for trade in value. Unless you have some written agreement otherwise, you likely traded in the vehicle as it was and need to be careful you don't breach your written agreement and get a repo for your efforts. ... Read Answer

If the contractor caused the sub to be unable to perform, and the sub otherwise performed its obligations under the contract, the contractor has breached its contract with the sub and is liable for the damages the sub incurred due to the breach, i.e. the profits it lost on the contract (less any profits it made up if it able to get another job now that it is free).  The problem is, however, that it sounds as if the contractor may be broke, and unable to pay.... Read Answer

No.  This is what is known as a scrivener's error, like a typo.  It does not affect the substance of the contract.  However, you can't be auto-renewed without your consent (I suspect, however, that the auto-renewal provision was in the contract you signed, which means that you agreed to it) and in some states (I don't know about Michigan) such an auto-renewal feature is unenforceable in these types of contracts.... Read Answer