Widgets Magazine
Widgets Magazine
Choose your channels
“Johnny Depp’s ‘Excessive Spending’ Doesn’t Count”: L.A Court’s Judge
Tuesday, July 11, 2017 • Hindi Comments

The on-going case of Johnny Depp vs TMG is taking a new turn every day and today’s verdict might just be in the favor of the TMG (The Management Group).

The Pirates of the Caribbean actor owes a 5% commission on his gross earnings that he not only paid but also filed a case against the TMG for “gross mismanagement and sometimes outright fraud” on the 13th of January 2017.

However, the superior judge of the Los Angeles Commission doesn’t agree with Depp‘s statement, after all, he only owed a mere 5% from his lavish earnings

Judge Teresa Beaude stated saying

“The pages of allegations of Depp’s allegedly outrageous spending clearly have no relevance to the 5% commission allegedly owed TMG from the Pirates Of The Caribbean payout, or to the final work done by TMG on transitioning their files to Depp’s new representatives”

“TMG has not indicated how it can amend the declaratory relief cause of action,” Beaudet’s tentative on the matter also noted on the main technical issue of the relief.

“Unless it provides some appropriate basis for so doing at the hearing, the demurrer is sustained without leave to amend” she concluded.

“Today’s ruling was a clear victory for The Management Group because the Court ruled in favor of our fraud claim,” said the defending lawyer of the TMG party.

“We intend to file an amended cross-complaint for declaratory relief. All of the issues regarding Depp’s extravagant spending continue to be fully included in the case” said the Judge.

She continues “The Court also does not find that TMG’s allegations in its promissory fraud cause of action are based on duties arising from any previous agreement between the parties, and do not lie in tort”

“Contrary to Cross-Defendants’ contentions, TMG has not simply alleged that it was not paid for its services, thus constituting a breach of contract” she adds.

Which means that Depp might have to pay the damages for the breach of contract, demanded as per the promisor’s requirements and pay the due amount (the subject) of the contract, for not fulfilling his obligation.