It is not about the virus... courts review language in contracts for common usage within an industry. If this contract was drafted in 2018 or 2019 based on many previous contracts where a back end deal based on wide release was clearely understood to mean theaters across the country, then it is NOT a change in the interpretation of words in the contract. Both sides entered the contract believing in release in theaters otherwise Disney would have put it in the contract at the time. COVID changed EVERYTHING.
Many people here are not familiar with contract law but a court gives meaning to language in a contract based on intent of the parties and common usage within an industry. Again, if this contract was signed in 2018 it matters as Disney+ was announced in 2018 to launch in late 2019. The language of the contract mentions wide release and ScarJo cna show that language was used to mean theatrical in the several contracts all signed prior with other parties she can establish the intent and that changing the meaning or intent to now include streaming after the fact is something that would have to be in writing clearly. the court WILL NOT put into a contract something not clearly intended by the parties.
Therefore although the case is not super strong, Scarlett does have a valid point within the law of contract language interpretation.
DIsney us making hundreds of millions of dollars off of this movie so the claim that Scarlett is looking to profit to the DETRIMENT OF OTHERS is silly. Poor Disney... they will only make $500 million dollars instead of $550 million....
