Charles Advertising Contract: Fill & Download for Free

They may be running out of options! Covid restrictions are keeping them from instant fortune in the form of red carpet events and appearance at A-list parties, the way Meghan hoped their lives would pan out.And the damage is done.Had they kept their heads down during the pandemic, the public may have been clamouring for sight and sound of them but, because Meghan, particularly, has put herself forward at every opportunity and used expensive PR to make sure she is foremost in everyone’s mind, most of us are sick to death of them.Fanfare: Netflix contract; fanfare: Spotify contract. Result: Netflix, so far nothing at all, even in production; Spotify; two very poor podcasts that have not yet materialised into a minimum weekly chat.An Oprah interview, for which CBS charged way above the odds for advertising revenue - and which failed to attract a big enough audience so advertisers demanded some of their money back. Instead, CBS gave the show another airing - audience? Who knows who watched that?If CBS tv advertisers weren’t satisfied with the pulling power of Meghan and her prince, who in their right mind, is going to back a podcast built on a model that has, so far, bombed? And which celebrities would risk their career being associated with not only Meghan but also a failed podcast?Yes, Harry has a job - one we are told is voluntary but I’m sure there will be remuneration in there somewhere - expenses, consultancy fees etc. The other, a new foundation that I expect will pay something - and may also give him equity that could, eventually, net him a great deal. But most firms that give shares as part of a package, have rules that mean Harry couldn’t realise the capital for xxx years, so it won’t be instant wealth.What else is there that will bring them in an income at the rate they are spending?Where else can they go to get instant money?Charles has said ‘no more’; there are few other commercial taps to turn on - today, would they even be invited to attend a film premiere, let alone receive a large sum for it? Are they likely to get appearance money to attend an A-list party as and when they are next held? Will anyone want them there?I suspect those days have long gone. They have done nothing of note; they are no longer members of the RF - and Harry’s royal ‘stardust’ has dropped away.Who are they any more?What’s next? Grubbing around for any kind of sustenance, I suspect. But, unless they pull a rabbit out of the hat, I can’t, for the life of me, think where they are going next!

“Legally, what is the smallest a font can be for a clause to enforceable?”Before I became a lawyer, I was once asked by a certain unnamed employer to design a document with terms that were hard to read without being obviously so.[Coughs, looks away in shame . . .]Now that I’m a lawyer, I think the general rule is that if you sign something that you could have read, albeit in small type, you’d likely have no basis for claiming it’s unenforceable.I do know any such test wouldn’t be subjectively applied based on the quality of your own visual acuity; there’s no point in claiming your bad eyesight excuses you from following a clause you couldn’t read.I’ve seen case law in my state establishing that the inability to read does not invalidate a contract you signed. If you are illiterate, it is assumed you have gotten someone to read the contract to you. If you didn’t, too bad — shouldn’t have signed it then.I think the same principle would apply here. If there was a term you couldn’t read, you shouldn’t have signed it.That said, there are some federal cases dealing with the enforceability of website terms where a consumer clicking through was found likely not to have understood what he was agreeing to where the placement of the terms was not logical and tiny fonts were used.There’s a recent federal case out of California, for instance, that held “[t]o the extent the tiny font size rendered the arbitration a surprise, it establishes some procedural unconscionability” but still not enough “substantive unconscionability” to make the arbitration provision unenforceable. See Cristo v. Charles Schwab Corp., 2018 WL 1737544 (S.D.Cal., April 11, 2018).So don’t try to trick people with tiny fonts — that’s just not cool. On the other hand, if someone presents you with an agreement in tiny, eyestrain-o-vision type, enlarge it or get a magnifying glass. Read and understand it before you sign!LATER SUPPLEMENT:Poking around on Lexis last night shows that some states do have type-size requirements for printed contracts in certain industries, not surprisingly insurance (e.g. 8-point), disclaimers in certain advertisements (e.g. same or a certain proportion of the type used in the body), and newspaper legal notices (can’t be smaller that the type used for normal classifieds).Be warned: the fact a term is printed in smaller type than required might not affect its enforceability!In the massive litigation over the 1983 Flight 007 disaster, I discovered there was an issue over whether Korean Air Lines damage limitation language printed on its tickets applied, where it had used 8-point type but the Montreal Agreement modifying the Warsaw Convention mandated 10-point type. A federal judge in the MDL held that the use of smaller type did not preclude the damage limitation language from applying, and this was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court on the merits:Quite obviously, the use of 8-point type instead of 10-point type for the liability limitation notice is not a shortcoming of such magnitude; indeed, one might well select that as a polar example of what could not possibly prevent a document from being a ticket.A smaller-than-required type size? Just an “irregularity.” Chan v. Korean Air Lines, Ltd., 490 U.S. 122 (1989).

Most of us are already getting tortured by the Jio Dhan dhana dhan advertisement.I noticed something different today.In every Jio ad, Deepika Padukone dances with the playersBut specifically today, I noticed something differentWhere is all the glamour? :(I guess this happens during every RCB match.Is there a thing between Virat Kohli and Deepika Padukone? xDEdit 1 - As mentioned by Gaurav Negi, this is because of Virat Kohli's Vivo IPL contract. It states that in any advertisement, along with Kohli there can't be any superstar. That is why we don't see any other star sharing screen with Kohli.Edit 2 - For all of you who are asking about Anushka Sharma. I don’t think so Anushka and Kohli featured together in an advertisement in IPL 2018. So the contract is valid.Edit 2.1 - For all those who are asking then why do Dhoni and Deepika feature together. I think the contract applies just to Virat Kohli because he has a brand value of around 130 crores whereas Dhoni’s brand values are mere 38 crores. (Stats by Gaurav Negi)Edit 2.2 - Some people are asking as to why Kohli signed such a contract. Well I guess the best person to answer the question is Virat Kohli himself xD