Should Britney be obligated to fulfil a contract made during the C-ship? She didn’t consent…

[femmef4toole]

This album deal with RCA - she didn’t set that up surely, it was done on behalf of her and probably against her best wishes so shouldn’t that negate the deal? Am I just being a silly goose 

[RadicalOptimism]

It should negate the deal, but also how hard would it be to release unreleased tracks to fulfill the contract? 

[BritBreakitDown20]

2 minutes ago, CrazyButItFeelsAllright said:

It should negate the deal, but also how hard would it be to release unreleased tracks to fulfill the contract? 

that would be a smart deal and would actually make us very happy since we didnt get any new album in nearly 8 years

[femmef4toole]

5 minutes ago, CrazyButItFeelsAllright said:

It should negate the deal, but also how hard would it be to release unreleased tracks to fulfill the contract? 

Girl would legit have to just pick the songs that already exist. I honestly pray for the day 

[PokemonSpears]

Whether it was morally wrong or not (and we would still need to hear Britney's opinion about it) the whole thing about the conservatorship is that it's just a big gray area of the law, a collection of loopholes that her handlers used to abuse her and steal from her all those years.

A person under a conservatorship isn't supposed to be working or engaging in multimillionaire deals, but precisely because that is supposed to be a given, there isn't a law that prohibits it explicitly. So if she signed it, coerced or not, pressured by the cship or not, technically it doesn't matter, for the law it's completely valid.

It would be up to the label to say whether they condone that or not, but more importantly as I said, up to Britney to tell whether she felt forced or not.

If Britney wanted out of the contract, she most likely would've found the way to terminate it already. Similarly, if the label wanted her to release something now, they would've made up an album of unreleased tracks or a remix compilation or whatever.

We don't know the conditions of the deal: minimum amount of albums per amount of years, sales, concerts, etc, but currently it seems like both parties are ok with whatever the situation is between them. It's not like Britney is looking for another label to resume her career, and the label is probably just fine collecting royalties, and profit from sales, streaming, merch, etc. 

 

 

[femmef4toole]

7 minutes ago, PokemonSpears said:

Whether it was morally wrong or not (and we would still need to hear Britney's opinion about it) the whole thing about the conservatorship is that it's just a big gray area of the law, a collection of loopholes that her handlers used to abuse her and steal from her all those years.

A person under a conservatorship isn't supposed to be working or engaging in multimillionaire deals, but precisely because that is supposed to be a given, there isn't a law that prohibits it explicitly. So if she signed it, coerced or not, pressured by the cship or not, technically it doesn't matter, for the law it's completely valid.

It would be up to the label to say whether they condone that or not, but more importantly as I said, up to Britney to tell whether she felt forced or not.

If Britney wanted out of the contract, she most likely would've found the way to terminate it already. Similarly, if the label wanted her to release something now, they would've made up an album of unreleased tracks or a remix compilation or whatever.

We don't know the conditions of the deal: minimum amount of albums per amount of years, sales, concerts, etc, but currently it seems like both parties are ok with whatever the situation is between them. It's not like Britney is looking for another label to resume her career, and the label is probably just fine collecting royalties, and profit from sales, streaming, merch, etc. 

 

 

An immaculate insight, thank you for clarifying. That’s just so sad though like that her signature during those times could bind her but as you said she could get out of it, maybe she wants the deal!

[Hamelia]

I think step 1 is to have the court declare Jamie as an unfit and abusive conservator who dissipated her money. 

Step 2 are all contracts that were signed on her behalf but against her will. She liked some of it, at least in the beginning.

[Hamelia]

2 hours ago, femmef4toole said:

An immaculate insight, thank you for clarifying. That’s just so sad though like that her signature during those times could bind her but as you said she could get out of it, maybe she wants the deal!

I am not sure her signature is on the contracts.

[KrisJ]

I think if she was obligated she would have released something by now. It’s probably still being decided? She didn’t sign it so it may not count 

[lucho pedres]

Britney shoud do this, do that. 

 

stop it.

[chizwhiz]

Nah I don't believe this rumour/blind item.

Record labels really don't like full album releases without tours anymore, most artists are on 360 deals meaning that the label get a percentage of all merch, all ticket stubs, everything.  So many artists in recent years have been building a career for years before the album comes out, they're old news.

Larry said years ago that the label were more about singles than albums. 

I think the only one who could be pushing her to release an album is her management because she will get 'advances' for them.  Sony know she doesn't want to tour, let alone get into a booth and they're unlikely to spend 5 figures trying to get a decent producer booked. Someone else made this up.

[Fita]

3 hours ago, femmef4toole said:

Girl would legit have to just pick the songs that already exist. I honestly pray for the day 

I think the label is watching the selfish movement fans made and how interested the public is still is in getting new or unheard Britney's tracks so, that's a possibility we shouldn't discart.

[Gioney]

Yes okay… but huge… not 10 unreleased But at least 24 songs… with 6 random singles, one every 2 months with some animated video… that would be enough and would be a gift for fans. Imagine the first 24 positions occupied by britney music… that would be huge and powerful to end and fullfill her entire career 

[PokemonSpears]

my point is, as long as Britney isn't forced to do something she doesn't want to, why would she care about terminating her contract or not?

We still got Hold Me Closer and MIND YOUR BUSINESS after her "retirement", so probably she's ok with just having the possibility to release something here and there if she wants to, as long as she's not being forced to record a full album, do press tours, live performances, etc.

And RCA must be ok with that, otherwise they would've done something years ago to either terminate the contract or just push her to do something. As I said, we don't know the clauses, so maybe the time is running up and it's only from now on that we'll start to see things moving to either direction, but I really doubt anything will change in the next few years.

[HearMeOnYourRadio]

Absolutely should negate the deal. I can’t imagine how she’d even be able to sign contracts/business deals under the conservatorship. I would assume it’d have to be her father, therefore I’d be more than happy to watch the label sue her family further into the ground. 

[DarielXO]

3 hours ago, PokemonSpears said:

A person under a conservatorship isn't supposed to be working or engaging in multimillionaire deals, but precisely because that is supposed to be a given, there isn't a law that prohibits it explicitly. So if she signed it, coerced or not, pressured by the cship or not, technically it doesn't matter, for the law it's completely valid.

I'm not sure about the US, but in my country (Central Europe) you're actually supposed to work if you're in a conservatorship AND you want to get out. Having a job, providing for yourself is key. The second is having a relationship. I don't say you must have it, but if you do, that's a big big big bonus. If you have these two and of course you take your meds and you go to therapy, then you can get out.

The US system is still a mystery to me.

[Hamelia]

2 hours ago, DarielXO said:

I'm not sure about the US, but in my country (Central Europe) you're actually supposed to work if you're in a conservatorship AND you want to get out. Having a job, providing for yourself is key. The second is having a relationship. I don't say you must have it, but if you do, that's a big big big bonus. If you have these two and of course you take your meds and you go to therapy, then you can get out.

The US system is still a mystery to me.

The definition of a conservatorship is that you are unable to care for yourself. That's why Britney's is so upsetting.

In which country do you live? What are the requirements to be put in a guardianship? 

[super.nova]

lol i think the most important point to be made on this thread is that we have never seen or learned from any sources of the terms of her contract, and let alone the number of albums.

this was made up by someone in this forum years ago. we do not have, and have never had factual information on agreements with the labels or how many albums, etc. ever.

so yeah. kinda crazy that you have this question to begin with lol.

Edited January 31 by super.nova

[DarielXO]

6 hours ago, Hamelia said:

The definition of a conservatorship is that you are unable to care for yourself. That's why Britney's is so upsetting.

In which country do you live? What are the requirements to be put in a guardianship? 

Requirements? A mental illness when you lose touch with reality is definitely one of them, so like going through psychotic episodes, but I know about a case when the person was just so paranoid due to a personality disorder that she harrassed and threatened a lot of people on a daily basis, and was basically unable to focus on important aspects of her life, her actions always triggered civil lawsuits against her and she started to spend her minor children's inheritance on those, and she stated even on court that she was never going to stop. That's when this Guardianship Office started to investigate her case and they believed she had to be stopped, so I could totally see a guardianship was the best for her and her children. In her case, it was going to jail (after a while) or being in a conservatorship. So putting yourself (and others) in trouble over and over and over and over and over again just because you don't understand you're doing that could also put you in a cship, it's not just a 'can you feed yourself or not'.

But conservatorship usually means "partial limitation of the capacity to act", even though we have a "full limitation" category as well for those who're in late stage dementia or they're dangerous. This is why Britney's case is a big wtf to me because hers was also a "full", but why? That doesn't really make any sense.

Edited January 31 by DarielXO

[everybodygoesdown]

Legally she is obligated to.

The decisions made for her during the c-ship are still binding and legal. Her conservators acted on behalf of her, therefor she is bound by these decisions.

The conservatorship has been terminated, but not declared fraudulent, invalid or void. If every termination of a conservatorship would result in nullifying every legal action during the c-ship, then nobody would ever want to make deals with conservators ever.

F.e. what if a conservator buys or rents a house for the conservatee to live in. The conservatee didn't rent the house, the conservator did. If the termination of a c-ship would result in the contracts not binding the conservatee, nobody would ever sell or rent a house to anyone in a conservatorship.

I think only those contracts that would be proven to have been harmfull to the conservatee or afflicted through a conflict of intrest on the conservator could be annuled after the termination (like the agreement for excessive fees to Tri-Star).

Edit: fyi this is just how I see the legality of it. Of course I don't think she should be obligated, but technically/legally they could demand that and the contract would still stand.

Edited January 31 by everybodygoesdown