Latest on MJJC

Contract Murray & AEG Contract

Ashtanga

Proud Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2008
Messages
21,818
Points
0
Location
In the heart of Michael... FOREVER!!!
AEGMurray1.JPG


AEGMurray2.JPG


AEGMurray3.JPG


AEGMurray4.JPG


AEGMurray5.JPG


AEGMurray6.JPG



More: http://muzikfactorytwo.blogspot.com/2011/07/conrad-murray-aeg-conract.html



This contract is real? :unsure: He was never disclosed. :scratch: Well, I never saw it....
 
Re: Contract Murray & AEG (?)

Never seen it before.. if it was real, I'd expect a autograph on there.
 
Re: Contract Murray & AEG (?)

It's real. I got it from the court documents (joe jackson's wrongful death lawsuit against murray) and muzik got it from me.

and I think we can move this to another section probably such as case forum?
 
Re: Contract Murray & AEG (?)

ivy said:
It's real. I got it from the court documents (joe jackson's wrongful death lawsuit against murray) and muzik got it from me.
Click to expand...

:fear:





ivy said:
and I think we can move this to another section probably such as case forum?
Click to expand...

Thanks Ivy! I did not know what session to post... I was confused if this contract was indeed real.
 
Yea its real. It was never signed. This is why Muarry hasn't been paid by AEG yet and probably never will be
 
Thanks, Ivy. Given the language of the contract, it's pretty clear that AEG WAS the "employer," and not Michael. The fact that Michael would pay back some of what was advanced by AEG is not stated in the contract, and has no bearing on that document. The contract also includes a confidentiality agreement that can only be voided, in part, with written permission by AEG. I.e. confidential information about Michael could be spoken or written about by Murray ONLY if AEG signed, but there seems to be no provision for Michael to be able to sign a similar release. Strange.

BUT, the contract was not signed. Therefore, AEG was "intended" to be the employer, had the contract been signed? The question of "who was Murray's employer?" remains murky. Not because it was MICHAEL who hired him (that's clear, that Michael was not "the employer"), but because there were no signatures!
 
Autumn II said:
Thanks, Ivy. Given the language of the contract, it's pretty clear that AEG WAS the "employer," and not Michael.
Click to expand...

true but look to item 8 - that it says murray was an independent contractor and this contract doesn't form employee-employer relationship? It will affect the civil cases against AEG I think.
 
ivy said:
true but look to item 8 - that it says murray was an independent contractor and this contract doesn't form employee-employer relationship? It will affect the civil cases against AEG I think.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I saw that. My understanding is that an "independent contractor" agreement is more about DURATION of employment, i.e. not a permanent employee but someone hired for a fixed amount of time for a specific purpose. For example, a construction company (I used to work in that area, with a lot of independent contractors) might hire an electrician for a specific purpose, and that relationship is terminated when that project is finished. If someone sues the electrician for faulty wiring, the construction company may also be sued for having chosen that contractor. It's a murky area. More important, probably, is the fact that the contract was not SIGNED. That, too, is a murky area because Murray was already performing services as detailed in the contract, but had not yet signed the contract and had not yet been paid. When he WAS paid, it would have been by AEG (and not Michael), and THAT is an employer/employee relationship, whether or not the contract had been signed yet. It can be argued that regardless of the language of the contract, if one party performs services, and the other party PAYS for those services, that qualifies as an employer/employee relationship. I mean, Murray wasn't intending to work for free! So that, too, is murky. What this contract does is eliminate Michael "as employer" from the mix. He may well have had some sort of agreement to reimburse AEG for paying Murray, but that's NOT part of this contract and would be a separate transaction between Michael and AEG. But, the idea that's been floated, that "Michael chose him," seems not to be a valid argument (according to this contract).

Using again the example of an "independent contractor" in the construction industry, I can see a situation where an electrician has an ORAL agreement to perform some work, and begins that work, but the contract is yet unsigned and payment has not yet been made. And, suppose that electrician makes a mistake that burns the building down! The client sues, both independent contractor, and the construction company. This is far from clear, in a legal sense, and would seem to be applicable in a "wrongful death" lawsuit, where it would have to be hammered out by the court.

(edit) I'll add a little bit to this, given that it's an area I know quite a bit about. I used to work as an "independent contractor," and that was sometimes WITH a contract, and usually, without one! Oral agreements can be legally binding. What comprises an oral agreement is a mutual understanding by both parties, that there is particular work to be accomplished, at a particular payment. Work begins, and that in a sense seals the oral agreement. Then, there may or may not be a contract. Payment is received, which further seals the employer/employee relationship. Payment may be a lump sum, or ongoing (such as a monthly payment, which seems to have been the case with Murray.) If the work to be performed requires "materials," then the oral agreement also specifies that (or in the case of Murray, exchanges of emails). Either the contractor, or the employer, may supply materials. That varies, according to the agreement between the two parties. So in this case, the emails between Murray and AEG would be important in illuminating the nature of the oral agreement. My conclusion? After having read the contract, I think the civil suits have a shot at this, regardless of lack of signatures on the contract.
 
Last edited:
Im not sure how it could be argued that mj didnt chose murray.the argument doest stand when u look at the info we have.are we sup to believe that aeg picked a random dr to work for mj and that dr just happened to be already doing work for mj and had been to a certain extent since 08. Ontop of the meeting with adams in march. It would be daft to argue it as coincedence that a random dr who wasnt even based in L.A got picked by aeg. Imo it would be impossible to argue infront of a jury that murray was picked by aeg alone and mj had no
connection with him when we have the info
that we do.

The main argument i guess can be solved interms of what is normal practice for hiring for concerts or similary creating records as the label pays upfront and reclaims off the artist.same as with shows.ie mj picks the producers or for the tour picks the dancers picks ortega picks faye and the backers ie aeg pay the money to hire these ppl and then get reinbursed via mj later.thats very different from saying aeg hired these ppl over mjs head.and imo it would then be easy enough to determine the whole duty of care issue interms of who picked murray and it not just been an issue of who was paying the wage.because as its shown with these types of things u have backers who pay and that doednt mean they are the ones who did the hiring
 
Last edited:
elusive moonwalker said:
Im not sure how it could be argued that mj didnt chose murray.the argument doest stand when u look at the info we have.are we sup to believe that aeg picked a random dr to work for mj and that dr just happened to be already doing work for mj and had been to a certain extent since 08. Ontop of the meeting with adams in march. It would be daft to argue it as coincedence that a random dr who wasnt even based in L.A got picked by aeg. Imo it would be impossible to argue infront of a jury that murray was picked by aeg alone and mj had no
connection with him when we have the info that we do.
Click to expand...

According to the contract, and legally speaking, it doesn't MATTER if Michael "chose" Murray. I'd expect that he DID? What matters is what is set forth in the contract, about employer/employee. It's likely that Michael had an arrangement with AEG to repay what was paid to Murray, but if so, that does not appear in the contract. My point is, that AEG can't really say, "Michael hired Murray, and WE didn't." Because, they DID, or that was their intention according to the contract.

Suppose a client has entered into an agreement with a construction company to build a house? The client wants the construction company to hire an electrician (who happens to be a friend of the client)? The one PAYING is the employer (not the one "choosing") If the client's friend, the electrician, is incompetent, then the one responsible is the company paying, and not the client. In this case, it's clear from the contract that AEG was to pay Murray (regardless of future repayment by Michael), and it can be argued that makes AEG the "employer."

That Michael "chose" Murray is likely to be an argument used by AEG, but I doubt it will hold water, given the language of the contract.


elusive moonwalker said:
The main argument i guess can be solved interms of what is normal practice for hiring for concerts or similary creating records as the label pays upfront and reclaims off the artist.same as with shows.ie mj picks the producers or for the tour picks the dancers picks ortega picks faye and the backers ie aeg pay the money to hire these ppl and then get reinbursed via mj later.thats very different from saying aeg hired these ppl over mjs head.and imo it wouldthen be easy enough to determine the whole duty of care issue interms of who picked these ppl or just murray and it not just been an issue of who was paying the wage.
Click to expand...

I'm sure what is standard practice in the industry would be looked at carefully in court. The missing signatures will be a big part of this, because Michael did NOT sign (nor did AEG). But, in terms of "wrongful death," a lot will hinge on WHO HIRED MURRAY. It can be argued both ways, but now that we've seen the contract, I think it's clear that the "employer" was NOT Michael, and AEG can't really argue that Michael EMPLOYED Murray.
 
Yeah i see what u mean interms of it been the wording of the contract thats gonna be looked at. But obviously aeg will argue the other point i wrote about and i guess a judge/ jury will decide based on a mixture of both?
 
elusive moonwalker said:
Yeah i see what u mean interms of it been the wording of the contract thats gonna be looked at. But obviously aeg will argue the other point i wrote about and i guess a judge/ jury will decide based on a mixture of both?
Click to expand...

If you use the construction company analogy, and given the wording of the contract, it seems unlikely that AEG can make a case for "Michael CHOSE Murray, and therefore he was the employer." With the construction company, if the client is forceful about hiring a friend or relative who turns out to be incompetent and causes damage, it's CLEAR that the one hiring is still at fault, because it's their responsibility to check credentials and supervise in some capacity. Or, if the client in insistent, the company always has the option to refuse to work with that client!

AEG is likely to say "Michael BULLIED us into hiring this guy." But now that we've seen the contract, this will not be a valid or legal argument, pretty sure.

I think more at issue will be the lack of signatures. But again, Murray had already started "work," and oral agreements ARE valid in court. The jury will be instructed about the LAW, and will no doubt be instructed that Michael's "wishes" did not dictate the hiring of this particular doctor, and the EMPLOYER has the responsibility.

(edit) Oral agreements can be quite valid. In this case, the proof of an oral agreement would be the emails back-and-forth between AEG and Murray, with Murray asking for various equipment and staffing. What the issue will be is, does the "oral agreement" take precedence over the UNSIGNED contract?
 
Last edited:
How do you solve the fact that Murray was buying Propofol months before he took the job to be Michael's doctor? You can't ESP if Mrs Jackson is trying to say they told him what to treat Michael with lets not kid ourselves
 
Justthefacts said:
How do you solve the fact that Murray was buying Propofol months before he took the job to be Michael's doctor? You can't ESP if Mrs Jackson is trying to say they told him what to treat Michael with lets not kid ourselves
Click to expand...

That would be EXTREMELY difficult to resolve. But, juries tend to look at evidence, as we saw in the Casey Anthony trial. She seemed quite guilty, but there was no concrete evidence to prove that. The case will have a lot of facets, and ultimately it will depend on what can be proven? The contract is EVIDENCE of the employer/employee relationship between AEG and Murray. That does address one of AEG's arguments, that it was Michael who "hired" Murray, and not AEG. AEG's intentions are CLEAR, in that contract. Clearly, there was an oral agreement between AEG and Murray, or all those emails would not have been generated. Further, that oral agreement covered the date of Michael's death. A prior relationship between Michael and Murray, may or may NOT be allowed as evidence. That is for a judge to decide.

For the rest of it, I guess it would depend on other evidence, i.e. when did emails between AEG and Murray begin, and records of his having purchased propofol, and evidence that he actually gave that propofol to Michael -- and a lot of other factual stuff?
 
Last edited:
There is no getting around that. Look at the other stuff she says in that lawsuit. AEG told him to stop going to see Klein because the meds Klein was given him was making him sleepy. Yet he was at Klein's office two days before he died. AEG hired Murray and over a month at AEG's directions he gave Propofol, Valium and other drugs. We supposed to ignore the fact he got the Valium a few days before Michael died and was not treating him with it for a month. There intentions of AEG was clear in the contract so you say so why wasn't it signed. That is like trying to kill someone with by throwing s spit ball at them. And that riot act. Five people at that meeting. Murray, Ortega, Dileo, Michael, and Phillips. Mrs Jackson was not there no one in his family was there so one of the people at the meeting is dead and I know none of the others told her anything about the riot act. So where does she get the idea a riot act took place?
 
I understand your building contract theory.but isnt it different because if i talk u into hiring my friend whos incompetent. U are paying his wages.mj was paying murrays wages via the advance through aeg and using the building anology u didnt hire that person on my behalf like aeg did for mj u just hired someone based on my suggestion for yourself.you werent acting as a middle man so to speak. Hope that makes sense.

The question is do the circumstances of the case get judged and used as evidence or is it just about the contract and nothing else.because the circumstances of the situation obviously make a big difference

what does mjs contract with aeg for the concerts say interms of the hiring of ppl.surely that would clear it up one way or the other
 
Justthefacts said:
There is no getting around that. Look at the other stuff she says in that lawsuit. AEG told him to stop going to see Klein because the meds Klein was given him was making him sleepy. Yet he was at Klein's office two days before he died. AEG hired Murray and over a month at AEG's directions he gave Propofol, Valium and other drugs. We supposed to ignore the fact he got the Valium a few days before Michael died and was not treating him with it for a month. There intentions of AEG was clear in the contract so you say so why wasn't it signed. That is like trying to kill someone with by throwing s spit ball at them. And that riot act. Five people at that meeting. Murray, Ortega, Dileo, Michael, and Phillips. Mrs Jackson was not there no one in his family was there so one of the people at the meeting is dead and I know none of the others told her anything about the riot act. So where does she get the idea a riot act took place?
Click to expand...

These are all good points. Not sure what will happen with this, but a lot depends on what the judge allows or does not allow as "evidence."

Looking again at the recent Casey Anthony trial, a lot of conjecture was thrown out there, but ultimately the verdict depended on concrete FACTS.

Why the contract wasn't signed will certainly be a sticking point. But that goes back to the "oral agreement" argument, which can be binding in court, and the proof of that is in the email exchanges between AEG and Murray, and the dates of those exchanges, and the contents. WHY the contract wasn't signed might not be relevant in the end, if an employer/employee relationship can be established between AEG and Murray. Given the wording of the contract, coupled with the emails, I think it CAN be established.

Also, in a civil case the burden of proof is DIFFERENT from a criminal trial, and more on the side of the plaintiff. The standard of "beyond reasonable doubt" is not used, for one example.
 
Justthefacts said:
Facts vs rumors. Facts always win
Click to expand...

Well, in a court-of-law, facts are SUPPOSED to win? (and sadly, in media, rumors usually win. . .) I think a lot of Katherine's claims can't be substantiated. But SOME can. A major part of this case revolves around "who hired Murray," and the contract is pretty clear on that. Whether or not Michael "requested" Murray will probably not be relevant.

The rest of it? Bound to be a lot of smoke-and-mirrors from the defense. In the end, Klein didn't kill Michael. MURRAY did. Klein was clearly treating Michael in some way, but Murray was the last doctor standing.
 
Which of katherines claims do u think can be substantiated

and what does mjs contract with aeg say about how ppl will be hired.
 
elusive moonwalker said:
Which of kathetines claims do u think can be substantiated

and what does mjs contract with aeg say about how ppl will be hired.
Click to expand...

We'd have to go back and look at that contract again. I'm not sure it was addressed in that contract, but it was a complex contract!

Which of Katherine's claims? The overarching claim of "wrongful death." Did someone kill someone else through errors, incompetence, and otherwise STUPID behavior? Such as, a drunk driver who kills someone. Technically, the family of the deceased can go after the drunk driver in civil court -- to pay any medical bills, loss of income from that person, and pain-and-suffering. This can be done regardless of the verdict in a criminal court. (If the drunk driver goes to prison on a conviction, the wrongful death suit might not mean much, though, i.e. if that person has no income to take! Might be possible to win personal property, though, such as a house?)
 
Maybe ivy can help re the contract.i thought it would be a pretty basic element like with the rental of the house and what mj was paying for.if im right in saying that was in the contract.each side woukd want to know who was paying for what
yeah wrongful death.i thought u ment specific claims

what do u actually think re the hiring.not sure where u stand interms of thinking aeg hired murray over mjs head or mj said i want him sign him up
 
elusive moonwalker said:
Maybe ivy can help re the contract.i thought it would be a pretty basic element like with the rental of the house and what mj was paying for.if im right in saying that was in the contract.each side woukd want to know who was paying for what
yeah wrongful death.i thought u ment specific claims

what do u actually think re the hiring.not sure where u stand interms of thinking aeg hired murray over mjs head or mj said i want him sign him up
Click to expand...

There really is no way for us to KNOW this, is there? There seems to be evidence that Michael knew Murray already, and requested him. Not sure, though, because I think it's only hearsay, as in, "Michael said he wanted THIS doctor!" My hunch would be that Michael DID request Murray, and AEG went along with it. Only a hunch, though. There is no proof either way, yet. If so, it's possible Michael made a mistake about judging the competence of the doctor? BUT, if AEG was going to pay him, per oral agreement OR contract, then their responsibility was to check him out thoroughly, and know what he was up to. There was that email where Murray requested a "cardiac bypass machine," that was an INCREDIBLE red-flag! Either that email went to an underling or got lost, or we don't know WHAT? But that implied EXTREMELY risky stuff going on, and if AEG was the "employer," a court could say that the responsibility fell on THEM to intervene at that point.

So, I think it's probable that Michael requested Murray. But given that, the ones paying Murray were to be AEG, and that solidifies the employer/employee relationship. In that sense, it doesn't MATTER who Michael requested? Similar to the example I gave about a client requesting a particular electrician, who later burns the house down! It's the EMPLOYER who is responsible, not the one who made the request, if that client is not paying the contractor directly.

(edit) So, if your question is "do I think that AEG INTENTIONALLY hired a shady doctor over Michael's head?" No. I don't.
 
Last edited:
Actually look to

A. .... "At the Artist's(Michael Jackson) request, producer (AEG) has agreed to retain the services of Dr.Murray"

9. Artist consent : The effect of this agreement is contingent upon the approval and consent of the Artist (Michael Jackson). Without the Artist's expressed and written approval neither party has any rights or obligations to one another arising from the agreement.

and the very end

The undersigned (Michael Jackson) hereby confirm that he has requested Producer to engage Murray on the terms set forth herein on behalf of and at the expense of undersigned (Michael Jackson).

--------

so I think this contract clearly makes it obvious that Murray was being hired by Michael's request for his benefit and being paid from Michael's share.

It also shows that it needed a written approval from Michael before they carry out the terms of the contract - which includes paying Murray and giving him the equipment he asked for.

-----

Then you have item 4.2 - responsibilities of murray : adhere to all laws, policies, rules and regulations applicable to the services to be provided by Dr. Murray

and

8. noting contained in this agreement creates partnership, employment relationship.

-------------------

this 2 puts the responsibility on Murray and removes AEG from any employment relationship and shared responsibility imo.

I don't think this agreement is helpful for civil lawsuits honestly.


and a interesting point.

look to item 7.6 that says Murray will be terminated if he cannot give a licence to practice medicine in UK to AEG by July 3rd.
 
Thanks for confirming that ivy.

Yeah thats an intresting point.i dunno ifs and buts u know. Seems no one was very organised.how long would it take to get a licence.surely weeks at least
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top