The double-edged sword of the two-birds one stone approach is that one of their birds (the misappropriation accusation) can bite them in the ass since it is VERY difficult to prove in this case (the whole Kevin Butler vs Jerry Lamber debate we've mulled over we both agree is picking at straws), and could harm the credibility of the other more valid accusation (contract violation). And even _it_ is a stretch, since the contract was theoretically over when the Bridgestone commercial aired. I agree for that we need to wait and see, as the contract may have mentioned that originally that he couldn't even "work" as in prepare for another commercial while on the 1-year period. However, add to this that it was filed in the state of California, where this kind of non-compete clause is generally dimissed, and this all in all looks like a failed case with 90% probability.
Existing User Log In
New User Registration
Register for a free account to gain full access to the VGChartz Network and join our thriving community.
