|
That's a separate matter, which has to do with the interpretation of a specific clause in the contracts.
The rights-recission issue has to do with how the court reads a term in the 1969 Agreements, which provides that if the studio is found to have failed to pay up, then Tolkien or his heirs can cancel the deal (again, this doesn't apply to Zaentz or MGM).
It's not related at all to the punitive-damages question punitive damages (which are a creation of the law, not any specific agreement) can only be awarded for torts, not brach of contract: TW is trying to get rid of the tort claims of fraud and breach of fiduciary duty).
Oh, what is a tort? A tort occurs when a person causes harm by breaching a duty imposed on him by the general law: like the duty to drive sober and not run people over. Breach of contract refers to breaching a duty imposed not by the law generally but only by the voluntary obligations of an agreement.
__________________
The entire plot of The Lord of the Rings could be said to turn on what Sauron didn’t know, and when he didn’t know it.
|