Forum - View topicINTEREST: Tokyo Court Rejects Agency's Damage Claim Against Former Idol for Dating
|
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next Note: this is the discussion thread for this article |
| Author | Message | ||
|---|---|---|---|
Pokenatic
 Posts: 563 Location: Neo Venezia |
|
||
|
Good.
|
|||
|
|||
|
AiddonValentine
Posts: 2207 |
|
||
|
Good for her; I am beyond sick of the idol industry pushing chasteness with their talent and denying the basic right to just be a human to women. Men admittedly do get some of it, but nowhere nearly as bad as women get it.
|
|||
|
|||
Sheleigha
 Posts: 1673 |
|
||
Yeah it's terrible having some of these people apologize for dating/wearing a wedding ring and so forth. It sucks that the male fanbase (and in some cases, female fanbase) get super jealous and angry at them for being involved with someone romantically. Japan already has a bad image regarding their population and the fact that there is a number of people not interested/too busy to even have a relationship. The toxicity that these stupid contracts have, do not help at all, and I'm sure can be rough on a lot of people. You can always say they can get into another business, but well, these things do pay the bills with the singing and dancing, and prevents unemployment. I'm glad the court ruled against the agency. A very good outcome, and hopefully things will start to change. |
|||
|
|||
WashuTakahashi
 Posts: 415 Location: Chicago, IL |
|
||
|
I wonder if we're at the beginning of a revolution of sorts? Maybe more idols will see this and demand that such clauses be removed from their contracts. Would be a nice change to see. But on the flip side, I hope they don't get to American levels, where every single time anyone of the opposite sex even hangs out "_ is dating _, read all about it here!"
|
|||
|
|||
Ulinox
 Posts: 687 |
|
||
|
No, this is not right!! When you sign a contract, it is binding! She broke the law!
|
|||
|
|||
azabaro
 SubscriberPosts: 251 |
|
||
Contracts are generally held to have limits in terms of what they can demand; for example, my understanding is that in the US no contract can obligate you to break the law (I'm not sure there are many countries in which such a contract term would be held as binding). In this case the judge has simply ruled that the contract's term against dating is non-binding and unenforceable, because it significantly infringes on her rights. |
|||
|
|||
Hoppy800
 Posts: 3331 |
|
||
|
This is great news, these tyrants don't deserve a single yen from her, they are the reason we even have issues like this, it's time for the agency to be accountable for their terrible contracts that violate human rights and the Japanese constitution and maybe they'll abolish them in the future and hopefully others follow and they won't lose money like this and we wouldn't have cases like this either.
|
|||
|
|||
|
AiddonValentine
Posts: 2207 |
|
||
I hope this is being ironic because the contract itself was pretty much trash as ruled by the court. |
|||
|
|||
falcon.punch
 Posts: 693 |
|
||
|
What a surprise... I didn't expect this after the other Idol problem.
|
|||
|
|||
louis6578
 Posts: 1862 |
|
||
|
Honestly, what's the point of looking cute and singing for a large crowd if you're legally forbidden from finding love? It's pointless. I hope she doesn't get into trouble for following her heart.
|
|||
|
|||
mgosdin
 Posts: 1302 Location: Kissimmee, Florida, USA |
|
||
Typically a contract that contains a clause that is in violation of established law will be held to be of no effect in regards to that specific clause. So, If the court rules that the "No Romance" clause violates the right to pursue happiness the clause is voided. Would be interesting if the Japanese equivalent of a supreme court were to rule on this, typically that would invalidate all such contract clauses. Mark Gosdin |
|||
|
|||
MagusGuardian
 Posts: 589 |
|
||
|
what the hell kind of stupidity is that? so she wants to date a guy she likes what's wrong with that, how stupid is that to have a no dating clause in a contract what next they're not allowed to eat or drink certain brands because they're not sponsors?
|
|||
|
|||
Xavi_
 Posts: 61 Location: Spain |
|
||
|
Is this inconsistency (in ruling) a good or a bad symptom about Japanese law-making? When two judges from the same court come to two opposite conclusions I interpret that as a big flaw in the system. Or is this a common occurrence?
At any rate, I am one of those sadistic mother&"$%s: if the wannabe idols don't want to get chastised they are free not to sign the contract and move on with their lives. Personally I find it repulsive, but whether the contract is binding or not is up to Japan to decide, not to forum dwellers. |
|||
|
|||
|
omegaproxy
|
|
||
|
This whole thing is stupid but funny.
|
|||
|
DmonHiro
|
|
||
That is only true only when the contract itself isn't breaking the law. There's such a thing as abusive clauses. If I convince you to sign a contract saying that you are my personal slave, I won't actually be able to enforce it legally. |
|||
 |
All times are GMT - 5 Hours |
|
|
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group