Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

rustynailsu t1_ixow0k8 wrote

Reply to comment by No_Tie3538 in Adidas launches probe into misconduct allegations against Kanye West by AsherBaels

There is probably a Morales clause and they want to use it to avoid having to pay out to close the contract. It seems to me the probe is so that they can claim they gave Mr. West due process.

89

[deleted] t1_ixp0jbm wrote

morals*, and it isnt capitalized since it's not a proper noun.

11

Furt_III t1_ixp36a8 wrote

That looks like an autocorrect typo.

8

dominus_aranearum t1_ixpbu5k wrote

It checks though. Replied to a comment that said

>Didn't they quite them?

So Morales was an acceptable substitution for morals.

5

rustynailsu t1_ixp1e72 wrote

You would be really disscusted bi >!/jk!< how awful my posts are before I check them.

0

RipeCreeling t1_ixoy3j1 wrote

I don't see how they can possibly establish that the morals violation they didn't even know about when they terminated the deal was the cause of the termination.

8

rustynailsu t1_ixp0nse wrote

Well, for for a start, accusing Adidas of theft could be seen to damage it's good name and reputation. That is certainly the type of speech could be proscribed by a morals clause.

14

RipeCreeling t1_ixp47qi wrote

I agree it would probably violate the morals clause. But the issue is that if the contract allows them to terminate it for his breach of the morals clause, they have to know about the breach before they terminate the contract. It's possible there is language in the contract that could allow Adidas to terminate it retroactively to the date of the breach if they find out after the fact, but I think that would be unusual.

9

rustynailsu t1_ixp661o wrote

Interesting stuff. I reviewed the timeline. Though the partnership was under review previously, the theft accusation happened on Oct. 6. The contract was not terminated until Oct 22. Would this make any difference, do you think, or did the review somehow contaminate the termination?

1

RipeCreeling t1_ixpagd0 wrote

When they terminated the contract Adidas issued a statement saying the company does not tolerate anti Semitism and that his comments were unacceptable and violated company values. I think they had sufficient basis to terminate because of his comments. The theft accusation certainly disparages the company and in that way may violate the agreement, but the review I was talking about was this recent review of his behavior based on the accusations from the employees he worked with, which wasn't known at the time of the termination.

7

Lerianis001 t1_ixp2b1i wrote

Unless he can prove that the allegation was true or to the best of his knowledge was true.

1

rustynailsu t1_ixp34fv wrote

That would defend a defamation claim. This is different. You can certainly sign your rights away to say things, even if they are true. Just look at the contracts Mr. Weinstein had women sign.

4

Skeletore-full-power t1_ixsg0fq wrote

>Morales clause

On a hip hop rapper. Seems kind of hypocritical that this would be the thing they get him on. Dudes said some pretty questionable stuff in rap lyrics.

Edit: dude has a song called black skinhead. That by itself might fuck up their whole investigation

1