SIGforum.com    Main Page  Hop To Forum Categories  The Lounge    NY judge awards graffiti artists 6.7 million after building owner removes graffiti
Page 1 2 3 

Moderators: Chris Orndorff, LDD
Go
New
Find
Notify
Tools
Reply
  
NY judge awards graffiti artists 6.7 million after building owner removes graffiti Login/Join 
Sigforum K9 handler
Picture of jljones
posted Hide Post
Hmmm, seems everyone reads a headline, and few actually read details.


_______________________________________________________________________
www.opspectraining.com

"Make it a shooting, and not a gunfight" LSP552 02/19/2011



 
Posts: 31662 | Location: Logical | Registered: September 12, 2004Reply With QuoteReport This Post
3° that never cooled
Picture of rock185
posted Hide Post
No matter how long the aerosol "artists" had been painting their art on the owner's building, seems to me they never owned the "canvas"/building. Would V.A.R.A. protect the aerosol artists if they created their art on the judge's house? Is "partnering" not removing or painting over the "art" right away? I gots to remember not to "partner" with any aerosol artistsWink


COTEP #640, NRA Life
 
Posts: 1219 | Location: Out West | Registered: August 18, 2003Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
Another sick liberal law that defends criminals. Only in Amercia.
 
Posts: 4222 | Location: Treasure Coast,Fl. | Registered: July 04, 2003Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
If he invited them to paint his building because he considers what they do to be art, he just gave them rights to decide what happens to it, later.
It sounds like he allowed it, encouraged it, maybe profited from it, and then stopped considering his "partners" when it suited him.

Not as black and white as the headline.

Bruce





"At the core of liberalism is the spoiled child — miserable, as all spoiled children are, unsatisfied, demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic and useless. Liberalism is a philosophy of sniveling brats."
-PJ O'Rourke
“It is just as difficult and dangerous to try to free a people that wants to remain servile as it is to try to enslave a people that wants to remain free." -Niccolo Machiavelli

 
Posts: 2712 | Location: NV | Registered: October 06, 2011Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Essayons
Picture of SapperSteel
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Lord Vaalic:
Someone needs to go add a shit ton of "visual art" to that judges house, car, roof, etc.


^^^^^This.


Thanks,

Sap
 
Posts: 3451 | Location: Arimo, Idaho | Registered: February 03, 2006Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Sigforum K9 handler
Picture of jljones
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by RNshooter:
Not as black and white as the headline.


Meh, why let little things like actual facts stand in the way of a good torch/pitchfork fest?


_______________________________________________________________________
www.opspectraining.com

"Make it a shooting, and not a gunfight" LSP552 02/19/2011



 
Posts: 31662 | Location: Logical | Registered: September 12, 2004Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by jljones:
quote:
Originally posted by RNshooter:
Not as black and white as the headline.


Meh, why let little things like actual facts stand in the way of a good torch/pitchfork fest?


Because this crowd is pretty strong on property rights.
 
Posts: 2241 | Location: MO | Registered: March 07, 2010Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Sigforum K9 handler
Picture of jljones
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by GregY:
quote:
Originally posted by jljones:
quote:
Originally posted by RNshooter:
Not as black and white as the headline.


Meh, why let little things like actual facts stand in the way of a good torch/pitchfork fest?


Because this crowd is pretty strong on property rights.


Yep, as I am. Problem is they probably should be pretty big on obligations, as well. It appears that this guy didn't live up to his and got spanked for it. They probably should also be pretty strong on being a nation of laws, the whole jury trial thing, based upon actual facts and whatnot. I know, silly concept. I guess though as long as it can be spun, and we can justify this as a "PROPERTY RIGHTS" issue, and not a contractual obligation thing, people can get away with anything they want.

I guess this is the point where we cue up the "Juries don't always get it right, man"?


_______________________________________________________________________
www.opspectraining.com

"Make it a shooting, and not a gunfight" LSP552 02/19/2011



 
Posts: 31662 | Location: Logical | Registered: September 12, 2004Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of Infidel
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by gpbst3:
what a lawyer for the artists had called “the world’s largest open-air aerosol museum.”


Sounds like he's been huffing those aerosols, right along with the vandals - ahem, I mean artists.




I hate offended people. They come in two flavours - huffy and whiny - and it's hard to know which is worst. The huffy ones are self-important, narcissistic authoritarians in love with the sound of their own booming disapproval, while the whiny, sparrowlike ones are so annoying and sickly and ill-equipped for life on Earth you just want to smack them round the head until they stop crying and grow up.
- Charlie Brooker
 
Posts: 527 | Location: Sammamish, WA | Registered: May 14, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by jljones:
quote:
Originally posted by GregY:
quote:
Originally posted by jljones:
quote:
Originally posted by RNshooter:
Not as black and white as the headline.


Meh, why let little things like actual facts stand in the way of a good torch/pitchfork fest?


Because this crowd is pretty strong on property rights.


Yep, as I am. Problem is they probably should be pretty big on obligations, as well. It appears that this guy didn't live up to his and got spanked for it. They probably should also be pretty strong on being a nation of laws, the whole jury trial thing, based upon actual facts and whatnot. I know, silly concept. I guess though as long as it can be spun, and we can justify this as a "PROPERTY RIGHTS" issue, and not a contractual obligation thing, people can get away with anything they want.

I guess this is the point where we cue up the "Juries don't always get it right, man"?


Contractual obligations. Are those in there with the emanations and penumbras?

Please explain the contractual obligations one is under, without any relevant contract.
 
Posts: 2241 | Location: MO | Registered: March 07, 2010Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Fighting the good fight
Picture of RogueJSK
posted Hide Post
Who says there's no relevant contract? Contracts don't don't just refer to a bunch of legalese that's written out and signed.

As a member of the Sigforum Bar put it so succinctly back on Page 1:

quote:
Originally posted by Southflorida-law:
Words and actions can create "contracts" that are enforceable.
 
Posts: 20888 | Location: Northwest Arkansas | Registered: January 06, 2008Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by RogueJSK:
Who says there's no relevant contract? Contracts don't just refer to a bunch of legalese that's written out and signed.

As a member of the Sigforum Bar put it so succinctly back on Page 1:

quote:
Originally posted by Southflorida-law:
Words and actions can create "contracts" that are enforceable.


Which is a horrifically repugnant notion to anyone sane.

I'm not saying you're incorrect, after all I've lived in NY and MA and have some familiarity with 'tenant law' in MA. Now that's a dark, perverse fantasy. NY is similar in spirit, to the best of my knowledge.

But now you know why people are responding negatively to this story, in case it's a surprise to you.
 
Posts: 2241 | Location: MO | Registered: March 07, 2010Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Fighting the good fight
Picture of RogueJSK
posted Hide Post
So you see no value in a "gentleman's agreement", where two parties simply agree to something? (Aka an oral contract.)

Should one party get off scott free if they welch on that agreement, merely because it wasn't written down, signed, notarized, witnessed thrice, stamped, sealed, etc.?
 
Posts: 20888 | Location: Northwest Arkansas | Registered: January 06, 2008Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
So let's get this straight...

A Federal law protecting "public" art on other people private property has what jurisdiction under what interpretation of the Constitution? Interstate Commerce, because tourists go to see it? Equal Protection, the basis of ADA, EEOC, Civil Rights and other such laws? Or just "we can make any law we want and try to stop us", which seems to be the attitude in Congress of late.

I thought real estate law was state level common law. And trespassing, vandalism, are also state laws or local ordinances.
 
Posts: 1620 | Location: Indiana | Registered: December 28, 2004Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by RogueJSK:
So you see no value in a "gentleman's agreement", where two parties simply agree to do something? (Aka an oral contract.)

Should one party get off scott free if they welch on that agreement, merely because it wasn't written down, signed, notarized, witnessed thrice, stamped, sealed, etc.?


I have honor.

My word binds me without a contract. A gentleman's agreement is not an enforceable contract, no. Sorry.

It's a gentleman's agreement. Contracts are for others than gentlemen.

Contracts are, dare I need to say it, contracts.

The concept of a contract that is neither written nor spoken (then what IS it?) seems to be some kind of mental defect. Maybe category error?
 
Posts: 2241 | Location: MO | Registered: March 07, 2010Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Fighting the good fight
Picture of RogueJSK
posted Hide Post
What about a contract that are neither written nor explicitly spoken? When you go into a business, do you expect the business to perform some service? Does that business in turn expect you to pay for that service? (That's an implied contract... nonverbal and nonwritten).

If the service is rendered and you then walk out without paying for that service, do you get off scott free simply because you didn't write out a contract, sign it, etc. etc.?

If you pay for the service, and the business fails to provide it, do they get to skate because you didn't write out and sign a written contract?
 
Posts: 20888 | Location: Northwest Arkansas | Registered: January 06, 2008Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Fighting the good fight
Picture of RogueJSK
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by GregY:
My word binds me without a contract.


Ah, so you agree that such an agreement is binding?

quote:
A gentleman's agreement is not an enforceable contract


The fact is, the courts disagree. This is not a new concept, either. Its roots go back many hundreds of year in Western law.
 
Posts: 20888 | Location: Northwest Arkansas | Registered: January 06, 2008Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by RogueJSK:
What about a contract that are neither written nor spoken? When you go into a business, do you expect the business to perform some service? Does that business then expect you to pay for that service? (That's an implied contract... nonverbal and nonwritten).

If the service is rendered and you then walk out without paying for that service, do you get off scott free simply because you didn't write out a contract, sign it, etc. etc.?


Did you get in trouble for stealing the condiments at ChikFilA at some point?

Expecting to bind people by imaginary unwritten, unspoken (then how are they communicated?) contracts is mental illness. Or thievery. Sorry.
 
Posts: 2241 | Location: MO | Registered: March 07, 2010Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by RogueJSK:
quote:
Originally posted by GregY:
My word binds me without a contract.


Ah, so you agree that such an agreement is binding?



To my own sense of right and wrong.

You're trying too hard with the gotcha games.
 
Posts: 2241 | Location: MO | Registered: March 07, 2010Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Fighting the good fight
Picture of RogueJSK
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by GregY:
Did you get in trouble for stealing the condiments at ChikFilA at some point?


Nope.

And thankfully, I've never had to fill out and sign a printed contract when I order and pay for my chicken sandwich either. Aren't non-written contracts great? Wink
 
Posts: 20888 | Location: Northwest Arkansas | Registered: January 06, 2008Reply With QuoteReport This Post
  Powered by Social Strata Page 1 2 3  
 

SIGforum.com    Main Page  Hop To Forum Categories  The Lounge    NY judge awards graffiti artists 6.7 million after building owner removes graffiti

© SIGforum 2018