• orcrist
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    21
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    27 days ago

    It’s particularly entertaining because he’s dead, so whatever agreement he made doesn’t stop her from filing a suit. In other words, this is not a situation where someone who’s currently alive had agreed to something in a click-through many years ago and is now suing.

    One of the other interesting points of contract law that I think Disney will quickly lose is the fact that the agreement years ago was between two parties for something that happened years ago. They will have difficulty successfully arguing that what looked like a small scale deal that has long since ended actually had potential negative ramifications but only for one party, for the rest of their lives. If Disney were still giving him benefits up to his death, I think that could potentially be a different situation.

    And as usual, depending on the level of negligence on Disney’s end, it doesn’t matter what he agreed to.

    • tektite@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      27 days ago

      In other words, this is not a situation where someone who’s currently alive had agreed to something in a click-through many years ago and is now suing.

      The wife was the doctor who died. The husband is who is suing and also who signed up for the D+ trial so yes it is but on behalf of someone who cannot sue as she is dead.