You are not logged in. Please register or login.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
#111 Re: Guns N' Roses » RRHoF Discussion (Izzy/Slash/Axl Press Statements) » 688 weeks ago
So was Slash strung along until after the statute of limitations?
Axl exercised his right to take the name and drew up papers making Slash an employee of G&R. Slash was in no hurry to sign them and never did.
But remember, it is not the responsibility of the contract holder to remind or expedite the interests of others based on a SOL.
#112 Re: Guns N' Roses » RRHoF Discussion (Izzy/Slash/Axl Press Statements) » 688 weeks ago
So potentially the shit hit the fan after the statute of limitations expired?
SO IF Slash signed the renegotiated contract in 1992 where Axl fucked him over for the name too, did Slash leave around 1996?
SOL can be tolled if a lawyer successfully argues that harm was not discovered until some time after the contract was signed. Again, this avenue was open to S&D but never pursued. They chose to say that Axl left the band in 94 and did not exercise his right to take the name with him.
#113 Re: Guns N' Roses » RRHoF Discussion (Izzy/Slash/Axl Press Statements) » 688 weeks ago
The statute of limitations in Calfornia for written contracts is 4 years...oral contracts 2 years. Thus, the SOL may have ran in 1996. I believe the name fully transferred to Axl on a European tour in 1992.
Axl owned the power to leave with the name, but did not exercise it until 96/97.
S&D could have asked the judge to waive the statute under extraordinary circumstances, but it would have to be part of their original brief. It wasn't.
#114 Re: Guns N' Roses » RRHoF Discussion (Izzy/Slash/Axl Press Statements) » 688 weeks ago
killingvector wrote:Aussie wrote:KV?
Niven was G&R manager and, as such, could be sacked at any time. From what I know about Axl and Niven's relationship, there were numerous problems between the two.
Additionally, it is not illegal to refuse to sign a contract. Everyone has a right to walk away; sometimes there are consequences to doing so.
If Axl committed a criminal act in obtaining the name, the statute of limitations would be longer than the civil, if my base legal knowledge is right. S&D could have sought relief based on fraud and coercion anytime up until that statute ended.
Since there is no evidence that the name was obtained through an illegal action and S&D have never commented on the statute running out, we can't conclude that this occurred.
When did the statute end tho?
I know it sounds like nothing, but I think in one of Axls rants he even referenced the fact that they tried to take action " long after the statute of limitations" had expired.
What if they came out of their drug haze after it was too late? It's not illegal but what are the ethics and intentions?
S&D could get a hearing to determine if the statute should be waived if they suffered from a debiliating condition which prevented them from making proper decisions.
Read the S&D brief. It explains Axl's powers in taking the name. He had to literally walk out the door and quit the original partnership in order to take control of the new partnership of which he was the sole member. This did not happen until those post UYI tour sessions. Axl drew up documents for S&D to sign making them his employees. These were the docs that Slash grumbled that Axl was pressing him to sign.
#115 Re: Guns N' Roses » RRHoF Discussion (Izzy/Slash/Axl Press Statements) » 688 weeks ago
Aussie wrote:Answer me this then KV, Alan Nven got Peter Paterno to draw up a partnership agreement which Axl refused to sign so it sat in a draw. Axl then sacked Niven and post that event took control of the name.
How ethical do you think that was even if not illegal? Why would he not sign it other than the fact he wanted to fuck the other guys over?
Also what was the statute of limitations on them launching a claim for this shit too? Honest question, was it passed before they realized what had happened?
KV?
Niven was G&R manager and, as such, could be sacked at any time. From what I know about Axl and Niven's relationship, there were numerous problems between the two.
Additionally, it is not illegal to refuse to sign a contract. Everyone has a right to walk away; sometimes there are consequences to doing so.
If Axl committed a criminal act in obtaining the name, the statute of limitations would be longer than the civil, if my base legal knowledge is right. S&D could have sought relief based on fraud and coercion anytime up until that statute ended.
Since there is no evidence that the name was obtained through an illegal action and S&D have never commented on the statute running out, we can't conclude that this occurred.
#116 Re: Guns N' Roses » RRHoF Discussion (Izzy/Slash/Axl Press Statements) » 688 weeks ago
killingvector wrote:buzzsaw wrote:Agreed, which is why I haven't used any. I'm just pointing out that you keep going back to the same thing every time a point is made and we're going in circles. I've posted the same thing (in different ways) three times now. You keep circling the conversation back because you can't continue once we get to the point of you admitting what Axl did was not right regardless of if it was legal or not. That's where you take it back to what is legal or people believing the unproven...
It doesn't matter. You used the word swindle, that implies an illegality.
What I am saying to you is that there is no evidence the name change occurred due to an act of coercion due to substance abuse or otherwise. S&D signed over the name willingly, knowing the full consequences of their actions. The myth is the pre-show ultimatum.
Was it right? That is a question for Slash and Duff to conclude.
No, I would have said illegal if I meant illegal. I am trying to eliminate law from this discussion.
Good luck with that.
#117 Re: Guns N' Roses » RRHoF Discussion (Izzy/Slash/Axl Press Statements) » 688 weeks ago
Again, you're going back to legal. This isn't about legal. Circling around yet again...
Again, you used the word 'swindle'.
#118 Re: Guns N' Roses » RRHoF Discussion (Izzy/Slash/Axl Press Statements) » 688 weeks ago
killingvector wrote:buzzsaw wrote:God I hope so. You're running in circles because you don't have much ground to stand on.
LMAO.
Usually it is the one who resorts to personal attacks who has run out things to say.
But, I agree that it is time for us to move on.
Agreed, which is why I haven't used any. I'm just pointing out that you keep going back to the same thing every time a point is made and we're going in circles. I've posted the same thing (in different ways) three times now. You keep circling the conversation back because you can't continue once we get to the point of you admitting what Axl did was not right regardless of if it was legal or not. That's where you take it back to what is legal or people believing the unproven...
It doesn't matter. You used the word swindle, that implies an illegality.
What I am saying to you is that there is no evidence the name change occurred due to an act of coercion due to substance abuse or otherwise. S&D signed over the name willingly, knowing the full consequences of their actions. The myth is the pre-show ultimatum.
Was it right? That is a question for Slash and Duff to conclude.
#119 Re: Guns N' Roses » RRHoF Discussion (Izzy/Slash/Axl Press Statements) » 688 weeks ago
That's how we all form our opinions. Lets suppose everything Axl did was completely legal (eliminate the entire debate we're having). Does that make it right? Legal and right are two different things.
You just don't do that to people, and if you do (legal or not), you live with the consequences of it. So that actual facts that you're so stuck on really don't even matter in this case. There's nothing Axl could say or use as justification for doing what he did that is going to make it okay to a lot of people. Axl knows this. Why don't you get it?
What you don't get is that I am not basing this 'opinion' solely on Axl's account. As I have brought up numerous times, one can read the S&D brief in which they attempt to gain exclusive rights to the old G&R catalog and rescind Axl's hold on the partnership and understand where they are coming from.
This isn't taken from the mouth or mind of Axl. Remember that.
Does Axl's actions make it right? Well, that is for each individual person to weigh. Would Slash and Duff have run the band into the ground considering their substance problems and the history of such bands doing just that?
#120 Re: Guns N' Roses » RRHoF Discussion (Izzy/Slash/Axl Press Statements) » 688 weeks ago
killingvector wrote:buzzsaw wrote:You best start confronting yourself. You're in the same dream world Axl is in.
I think our conversation is at an end.
God I hope so. You're running in circles because you don't have much ground to stand on.
LMAO.
Usually it is the one who resorts to personal attacks who has run out things to say.
But, I agree that it is time for us to move on.
