Our Fake Mayor's Contract Problems

If you are like me, you have been watching the actions of our fake mayor, Teddy Conrad, with increasing disgust.  I could not believe that he signed his 15-year-old daughter, Maddie, to a record deal with Edgehill Records.  He didn't even read the contract! 

 

            I'm not going to give any spoilers away to those who did not watch the most recent episode of Nashville but the situation did cause concern.  No serious record company, no matter how evil, would sign a minor to a long-term recording agreement in Tennessee without seeking a court order removing the "disability" of the child's minority for the purpose of "making a contract".

            T.C.A. Sec. 29-31-101 et seq. sets out a very straightforward framework in which a minor, either through his or her "next friend" or parents, files an application in Chancery Court to "remove" the child's minority.  This is routinely done when a child signs a recording agreement or a publishing agreement.

            While it is true that a parent can sign a minor to a contract, that contract can be completely voided by the upon reaching the age of 18.  Thus, if Edgehill Records was going to invest its significant resources in Miss Maddie Conrad, it would want to make sure that she could not terminate the contract at the age of 18.

            This is the exact situation Le Ann Rimes found herself in in 2000 when she tried to terminate her recording contract with Curb Records.  The label in that case had taken the extra precaution of having Ms. Rimes' minority removed by the Chancery Court in Nashville and by having a Texas court affirm the contract.  Courts in Texas and Tennessee refused to let Rimes set aside the contract for this reason.

            I constantly have to remind myself that Nashville is a soap opera (and that Deacon Claybourne does not live on Boscobel Street and is not my neighbor) but it would have been interesting if Jeff Fordham had been required to battle Maddie's contract out in court.  Next time maybe one of these guys will hire a lawyer.

Curb v. Tim McGraw Round One

I have slowly been trying to write a short book about some of the common disputes that arise in the music business. I had just begun work on the chapter concerning recording agreements and I thought to my self, "this topic has been done to death. What else is there to write about?" Then came the news two weeks ago about Tim McGraw's preliminary victory over Curb Records in the Davidson County Chancery Court.

This case has all of the necessary elements of a legal drama – high-powered artist battles even higher-powered label over arcane language in a recording agreement first entered into in 1992.

As I understand it, Curb first sued McGraw claiming that he had not delivered the required number of albums under the agreement, even though he in fact had delivered what he considered to be the final album under the agreement in 2010 (and Curb even released a single from the recordings).McGraw has counterclaimed alleging that Curb's actions (including multiple releases of greatest hits albums) are "a naked attempt to create a perpetual recording contract, forcing Tim McGraw into a repressive environment of infinite duration …".

I am assuming that the hearing held on November 30 concerned Curb's attempt to enforce the injunctive relief provisions of its agreement and to keep McGraw from recording for another label during the course of the litigation. I have reviewed McGraw's answer and counterclaim and have to say that it is one of the most eloquent pleadings I have ever encountered. (here's a link:www.tennessean.com/assets/pdf/DN174765524.PDF). It literally reads like a novel where you follow McGraw's career from 1992 through 2010 as well as a textbook analysis of how the delivery process and recording restrictions in a recording agreement can be manipulated.

I don't know how this will play out but if it goes further it will provide fascinating insight into some of the more esoteric provisions of recording agreements, often ignored during negotiations. It may also show us how some these overlooked provisions might come back to bite both parties.