Can a contract ban someone from having a personal relationship?
June 14, 2017 1:40 PM
This is kind of a vague question, for which I apologise: Friend of a friend of a friend is an up and coming rapper who has signed some sort of contract with another, quite famous and successful rapper who is promoting/mentoring him. Apparently the contract stipulates that the junior rapper cannot have a girlfriend, for reasons I haven't had explained to me. I haven't seen the contract (and won't), but am wondering if any such clause would really be enforceable. Not looking for hard legal info, just curious about the general concept.
Without doing any research: contracts in general restraint of marriage are unenforceable in most states. I would expect similar disfavor towards a contract restraining an inevitable step towards marriage ("you can marry, she just can't be your girlfriend first"?). The ability to form a family freely is actually generally considered a fundamental human right, and is quite distinct from, say, the ability to drink in public or associate with known felons.
posted by praemunire at 2:05 PM on June 14, 2017
posted by praemunire at 2:05 PM on June 14, 2017
In the USA, contracts prohibiting marriage are void as against public policy. See cases discussed here.
A contract prohibiting a girlfriend/boyfriend relationship would arguably be void because such a relationship is usually a required prerequisite to a marriage, and contracts that prohibit marriage are void.
However, some states in the USA do enforce contracts prohibiting sexual activity in some contexts, such as (1) company employment contracts that prohibit employees from dating each other and (2) premarital property agreements that prohibit cheating.
Much would depend on what laws applied, as well as the particular dating relationship, as well as the contracting parties' relationship to each other. There isn't enough information in your question to do more than speculate.
posted by PlannedSpontaneity at 2:06 PM on June 14, 2017
A contract prohibiting a girlfriend/boyfriend relationship would arguably be void because such a relationship is usually a required prerequisite to a marriage, and contracts that prohibit marriage are void.
However, some states in the USA do enforce contracts prohibiting sexual activity in some contexts, such as (1) company employment contracts that prohibit employees from dating each other and (2) premarital property agreements that prohibit cheating.
Much would depend on what laws applied, as well as the particular dating relationship, as well as the contracting parties' relationship to each other. There isn't enough information in your question to do more than speculate.
posted by PlannedSpontaneity at 2:06 PM on June 14, 2017
Is it actually "can't have a girlfriend at all," or "can't bring a girlfriend to recording sessions/performances" and "can't have a girlfriend in your entourage?"
posted by erst at 2:19 PM on June 14, 2017
posted by erst at 2:19 PM on June 14, 2017
Also it isn't so much about enforceability as who would enforce what, in what circumstances?
Say the rapper signs this agreement, and then wants to get married. As noted above, he can't be prevented from getting married: he has the human right to get married and it can't be signed away. However, it's unlikely that in this case the mentor could be required to continue to promote the rapper, if the romantic relationship interfered with the promotion that the mentor was doing for the rapper. The question is who would have to pay what, to whom, in order to get out of the agreement, and that would involve a lot of factors.
posted by fingersandtoes at 2:22 PM on June 14, 2017
Say the rapper signs this agreement, and then wants to get married. As noted above, he can't be prevented from getting married: he has the human right to get married and it can't be signed away. However, it's unlikely that in this case the mentor could be required to continue to promote the rapper, if the romantic relationship interfered with the promotion that the mentor was doing for the rapper. The question is who would have to pay what, to whom, in order to get out of the agreement, and that would involve a lot of factors.
posted by fingersandtoes at 2:22 PM on June 14, 2017
As noted above, he can't be prevented from getting married: he has the human right to get married and it can't be signed away. However, it's unlikely that in this case the mentor could be required to continue to promote the rapper, if the romantic relationship interfered with the promotion that the mentor was doing for the rapper.
What? This contract, like virtually every contract between sophisticated entities, would most likely contain a severability provision, allowing for the remaining terms to be enforced even if an individual term proved to be unenforceable. In that case, a refusal to provide the contracted-for services by the promoter would be a breach of contract. It is extremely unlikely that the romantic relationship would be held to so defeat the purpose of the agreement as to constitute a breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing and thus permit the promoter to stop providing the services.
The question is who would have to pay what, to whom, in order to get out of the agreement, and that would involve a lot of factors.
Any lawyer in a U.S. jurisdiction who would let the rapper pay a dime to "get out" of the contract solely on this basis should be sued for malpractice.
posted by praemunire at 2:32 PM on June 14, 2017
What? This contract, like virtually every contract between sophisticated entities, would most likely contain a severability provision, allowing for the remaining terms to be enforced even if an individual term proved to be unenforceable. In that case, a refusal to provide the contracted-for services by the promoter would be a breach of contract. It is extremely unlikely that the romantic relationship would be held to so defeat the purpose of the agreement as to constitute a breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing and thus permit the promoter to stop providing the services.
The question is who would have to pay what, to whom, in order to get out of the agreement, and that would involve a lot of factors.
Any lawyer in a U.S. jurisdiction who would let the rapper pay a dime to "get out" of the contract solely on this basis should be sued for malpractice.
posted by praemunire at 2:32 PM on June 14, 2017
Read any music biography ever and they all have the same plot, "this is how I got ripped off".
I have been adjacent to this situation a couple times.
What I learned: never sign the "never do this" version of a contract. Get a better lawyer.
All sorts of pop stars have contracts that restrict their public and legal behavior to project the most marketable image to the paying customers.
However, I think the new generation has spawned a wave of "I agree to publicly minimize my non-marketable thing whatever it is" (it's usually puppet or sex related).
A notable example is One Direction who were shaped into something purely to make money from a specific demographic. This keeps happening because the formula keeps working! For the record, One Direction is pure cotton candy fun, so it works for me too. Anyhoo, all of those (men) were scamps who signed contracts and became "fine English lads".
The music game has a lot of promoters and "idea" people who are all trying to sell the next it thing and unfortunately, talent is often the cheap resource they exploit. This is show business 101.
posted by bobdow at 2:44 PM on June 14, 2017
I have been adjacent to this situation a couple times.
What I learned: never sign the "never do this" version of a contract. Get a better lawyer.
All sorts of pop stars have contracts that restrict their public and legal behavior to project the most marketable image to the paying customers.
However, I think the new generation has spawned a wave of "I agree to publicly minimize my non-marketable thing whatever it is" (it's usually puppet or sex related).
A notable example is One Direction who were shaped into something purely to make money from a specific demographic. This keeps happening because the formula keeps working! For the record, One Direction is pure cotton candy fun, so it works for me too. Anyhoo, all of those (men) were scamps who signed contracts and became "fine English lads".
The music game has a lot of promoters and "idea" people who are all trying to sell the next it thing and unfortunately, talent is often the cheap resource they exploit. This is show business 101.
posted by bobdow at 2:44 PM on June 14, 2017
If for no other reason than to demonstrate that lawyers rarely agree on anything, I come to take the contrary view.
A "restraint of marriage" typically comes up in a will or deed or other grant to someone, as a way for the grantor to control the grantee's behavior beyond the time that grantor is providing anything. It says "I give $1 million to Billy, as long as he never marries." (Or if they are really distasteful, "I give $1 million to Billy, as long as he never marries a [Jewish/black/Catholic/etc.] person.") It's one-way and after-the-fact.
Here, there is an ongoing, two-way relationship where both parties have obligations. I would think that "sophisticated entities," to use praemunire's words, would have no trouble crafting language that makes it much less an outright restriction on the rapper's ability to enter into a relationship and more a right of the promoter to terminate if he determines that the rapper is no longer sufficiently marketable.
TL;DR: a blanket "you can't have a girlfriend" might not be enforceable, but a contract that allows the promoter to bail if the rapper has a girlfriend could be pretty easily drafted.
posted by AgentRocket at 3:03 PM on June 14, 2017
A "restraint of marriage" typically comes up in a will or deed or other grant to someone, as a way for the grantor to control the grantee's behavior beyond the time that grantor is providing anything. It says "I give $1 million to Billy, as long as he never marries." (Or if they are really distasteful, "I give $1 million to Billy, as long as he never marries a [Jewish/black/Catholic/etc.] person.") It's one-way and after-the-fact.
Here, there is an ongoing, two-way relationship where both parties have obligations. I would think that "sophisticated entities," to use praemunire's words, would have no trouble crafting language that makes it much less an outright restriction on the rapper's ability to enter into a relationship and more a right of the promoter to terminate if he determines that the rapper is no longer sufficiently marketable.
TL;DR: a blanket "you can't have a girlfriend" might not be enforceable, but a contract that allows the promoter to bail if the rapper has a girlfriend could be pretty easily drafted.
posted by AgentRocket at 3:03 PM on June 14, 2017
Thanks all, these are all very intriguing and thoughtful responses. Again, sorry that the question is light on relevant information. Not being at all close to anyone in the entertainment biz, and not being a lawyer, my innate sense of fairness/justice just found the concept as it was explained to me bizarre, almost out of a different century.
posted by senor biggles at 3:43 PM on June 14, 2017
posted by senor biggles at 3:43 PM on June 14, 2017
Interesting. Not a lawyer here, but certainly on the face of it it seems like it could be valid. "I agree to give you advice once a week and in exchange you agree not to have a girlfriend" is bizarre but I don't see how it would *not* be enforceable.
Much to my surprise, many states allow employers to discriminate on the basis of marital status. If you can deny someone a job because they are married, it would seem like you could deny someone mentorship for having a girlfriend, especially given that mentees under the law generally have a lot fewer protections than employees.
posted by phoenixy at 4:48 PM on June 14, 2017
Much to my surprise, many states allow employers to discriminate on the basis of marital status. If you can deny someone a job because they are married, it would seem like you could deny someone mentorship for having a girlfriend, especially given that mentees under the law generally have a lot fewer protections than employees.
posted by phoenixy at 4:48 PM on June 14, 2017
TL;DR: a blanket "you can't have a girlfriend" might not be enforceable, but a contract that allows the promoter to bail if the rapper has a girlfriend could be pretty easily drafted.
This. Also, you see this sort of thing in Family Court a fair bit - where one/both parties agree (are ordered, depending) to not date until the child is so old, or under certain conditions, or some such. My ex tried to put something like that on me, and I outright refused based on my attorney's advice that not only was it enforceable, it was contempt of court to violate it.
posted by Pogo_Fuzzybutt at 4:49 PM on June 14, 2017
This. Also, you see this sort of thing in Family Court a fair bit - where one/both parties agree (are ordered, depending) to not date until the child is so old, or under certain conditions, or some such. My ex tried to put something like that on me, and I outright refused based on my attorney's advice that not only was it enforceable, it was contempt of court to violate it.
posted by Pogo_Fuzzybutt at 4:49 PM on June 14, 2017
I can't speak to enforceability, but I have a friend who was in an established, actually long term bf/gf relationship with someone who entered politics and ran for local office. His gf was basically banned by his political mentors from attending any public events, as his PR campaign was positioning him as young, attractive, and single*.
So it could be something like that, where the contract doesn't truly state that he can't have a gf in his private life, just that for PR purposes she can't attend certain events, or if she does she has to arrive separately and leave separately.
*He went along with this PR plan. Care to take a guess at how long it was before the "single" part became true?
posted by vignettist at 7:53 PM on June 14, 2017
So it could be something like that, where the contract doesn't truly state that he can't have a gf in his private life, just that for PR purposes she can't attend certain events, or if she does she has to arrive separately and leave separately.
*He went along with this PR plan. Care to take a guess at how long it was before the "single" part became true?
posted by vignettist at 7:53 PM on June 14, 2017
I don't know how legally enforceable it is, but it is common. Brian Epstein famously forbid John Lennon to talk about, acknowledge, or bring his first wife Cynthia around in public. Epstein thought being married would hurt Lennon's image as a member of a band of teenage heartthrobs.
posted by chainsofreedom at 2:22 PM on June 15, 2017
posted by chainsofreedom at 2:22 PM on June 15, 2017
« Older Can you help me with a changing, but still there... | Stops on a summer ramble from Portland, OR to... Newer »
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by fingersandtoes at 2:01 PM on June 14, 2017