Late Anita Mui being sued for not completing contract

[Omniflame]

HONG KONG (AFP) - A music company owned by late Hong Kong pop diva Anita Mui faces legal action over an unfinished TV ad which she was shooting when she died of cancer, press reports and a court source said Thursday.

Mui was filming the promotion in Japan for Modern Beauty Salon, for whom she was employed as a spokeswoman, but died before it could be completed, the Chinese-language newspaper The Sun reported.

It said the salon has now lodged a writ with the High Court calling for her company Mui Music to repay 2.3 million Hong Kong dollars (US$294,872). Judicial sources confirmed a writ has been filed.

Mui Music declined to comment and told the newspaper that it would leave the case to its lawyer. Mui was dubbed "the Madonna of Asia" with her outrageous costumes, raunchy stage performances and a stream of hits which netted her numerous awards.

Source: http://www.brunei-online.com/bb/fri/oct8w18.htm

That company is going really low to get money.

[James Ko]

You can tell that Anita Mui is worth lots even after she is passed away.

This is really sad how people leech off from the dead.

[2socks]

Outrageously unethical!

[Ken Cheng]

It's the equivalent of digging up a corpse and shaking it to see if any pocket change falls out of its pockets. Despicable.

[Thor]

It is really shameful what they are doing. It only a $295000 US. Those companies spend more than that just to host a party.
They should forget about it. It is not respective to sue the dead.

[Lady Zhuge]

Hopefully the public gets smart and boycotts this greedy and insensitive company. Wouldn't it be ironic if they end up losing a lot of business and have to close down?

[crazylazy_chief]

that's ridiculous, jeez, can't they let the ones that are passed away rest in peace already.....it's just really disgusting in what people would do to get money

[foreva]

Well.. I'm not unsympathetic, but really, it's a company, and companies have to make money.

And how do you know that sums over 200,000+ are not considered large sums for that particular company? Have you seen their books? No you haven't.

There are lost opportunity costs, time etc. to be considered, it's not just black and white to think that when a person dies, their legal implications will all be erased.

[Guo Xiang]

Let's just make it clear that, Anita had not meant to die. I'm sure she did not wanted to die. I'm sure she did not wanted to die leaving unfinished contracts like that. Her death however, was inevitable and could not be helped. She did not choose to end it. Anita did not finish the contract not because she did not want to, but because she was not permitted to.

It's unethical to sue a dead for money anyway.

Foreva, I suppose you would allow me to sue someone close to you, and dig their corpses up if they owe me any money before they passed away?

[foreva]

I'm not sure if you read the article, but it says that they are suing the COMPANY, not anita mui in her grave.

[PinePine]

^That's still pretty wrong in my opinion. Let the dead rest in peace.

[Vicious]

they're not sueing anita mui, they're suing the mui company for not giving back their money. I would only assume that anita mui would've given back their money to them if she knew that she couldn't fulfill her obligation in the first place.

[cherrie]

stupid, let the dead rest in peace.
but if i were mui company, i would return the money.

[kidd]

If the company is suing Anita's company to get back the money they paid upfront (2.3 million Hong Kong dollars is not a small sum), I don't see anything wrong with it. If the company is suing Anita's company to get more money off her, then it's wrong. The news article just say 'repay' but didn't specify whether it's to get back the money the company has paid upfront or ask money for compensation (like those libel suits).

[Spiritanto]

I'm not unsympathetic of the company but I'm sure Anita Mui did not intend to die, thus breaking the contract.

Accidents/Deaths by circumstances like that, should automatically revoke the contract, IMHO.

[MCthug]

They're Japs what can i say

They only have respect for Class a war criminals buried in some stupidass shinto shrine.

[flyingfox2002]

To be fair, Anita's company should repay the advance given to Anita. It's sad that she died, but it does not mean that the company has to lose the money. It was a legal document that was signed, and it should be honored.

You know, here in NY, patients have to fill out a form in which they have to designate someone responsible for doctors bills incurred on his/her behalf in case they pass away. Death does not relief one of obligations to other parties.

[foreva]

They're Japs what can i say

They only have respect for Class a war criminals buried in some stupidass shinto shrine.

I can't believe the division of race and country is still able to cloud some people's minds. Mind you. This is a forum discussing asian entertainment, including Japanese entertainment. If you can make such crude remarks, let me inform you. All companies over the world will do that. Do you think that the companies in the US will not do the same thing? And chinese as well. Isn't it a rather known theory that chinese are very good at money making? Do you think that their reputation was due to their compassion and charity? I doubt so.

[flyingfox2002]

That guy's just an existing SPCNET member who signed up for an alias to post that comment to enlist a reaction.

Ignore him.

[Ren Wo Xing]

RE Flying: Exactly. Anita's death was regrettable, of course, but simply dying doesn't release one of one's obligations. For the company involved, especially if it isn't a super-rich one, that's an enormous amount of lost capital.

Because -she- died, THEY should pay the price? I don't think that's quite reasonable. Besides, I highly doubt she needs money, wherever she is, at the moment. She doesn't have the money, her company does. Her company promised a service; it failed to deliver, so it's refunding it's customer. Except it's refusing to do that, so the customer is suing. As for 'letting the dead rest in peace', I don't think that the dead rather care about lawsuits. Not being dead myself though, I'll admit this is conjecture

Personally, I think it's her company that's being unreasonable. I doubt that the Japanese salon went to the trouble/expense of a lawsuit without having first went and asked...and, it would rather seem, they were turned down.

RE Guo Xiang: Let's say your brother is a contract construction worker, and someone contracted him to do some house repairs. They paid him upfront, oh, 10,000. But, suddenly, he dies, and the work is left undone. A decent interval of time passes (a month or two), and the contracter comes to your house, and politely asks for his money back, since as it stands, he's out of repairs AND money for nothing. What do you do? Flip him the bird, say, "My brother's dead, so if your house wasn't repaired, too damn bad."? I don't think you'd do that, you'd give the man his money, he'd mumble some polite condolences, then go back

Mui's company, though, obviously didn't. As long as the lawsuit is for money that they had sunk in, which the company refuses to return, I think it's perfectly legitimate. It only becames shady when they begin to sue for compensation damage, for loss of sales due to the advertisement not done, etc. etc.