Charlize Theron To Pay For Wearing Wrong Watch

Charlize Theron will have to pay - perhaps eight figures - for wearing the wrong watch, a Manhattan judge has ruled.

Watchmaker Raymond Weil has already won summary judgment in a federal civil complaint that Theron broke their deal by failing to exclusively wear the pricey timekeeper in public.

Theron and her production company, Denver & Delilah Films Inc., were listed as defendants. The "Monster" star begged out of penalties, but US District Court Judge Colleen McMahon denied the Oscar winner.

"It is obvious that Theron cannot be dismissed . . . she was not an unwary agent," McMahon wrote, noting that Theron's initials appeared 10 times on the 10-page contract the actress broke.

Damages will be awarded at a jury trial. The watchmaker is seeking $20 million.

Comments

[adzeman]

The stupidity of the whole product placement thing. I cannot recall ever buying or lusting after any fashion item or accessory because a celebrity wore it. Conspicuous consumption of absurdly expensive items is nothing to be celebrated.

[harriettubman]

Me either. I look at the high end fashion shows and wonder "who would wear that?"

When they announce that celebs are wearing a $million in jewelry on the red carpet. Yawn, who cares?

[Bongborg]

Muggers.

[Furrypeanut]

That seems awfully harsh. She should have to give back what they paid her but to sue for $20MM? Cmon.

[Merckx]

I can't believe I'm writing this, but this is a legal tactic by the watch company lawyers.
They are hoping for and will settle for a much smaller settlement before it goes to trial.
My mind must be really gone for me to recognize this for what it is. I used to believe only lawyers thought like this.

[MissingAmerica]

Disgusting! Pure greed. So what else is new?

[Eric8869]

Making someone live up to a conctact is disgusting?

[gfk]

This is why celebrities are now starting their own lines of watches, jewelry, clothes, shoes and bags. Why promote someone else's product when you can have your own. Next to come out, the Charlize line of expensive watches.

[tkondaks]

This reminds me of what happened to Don Johnson in the '80s while he was starring in "Miami Vice". He had procured a multi-million dollar with Pepsi to promote it in ads. The contract apparently stipulated that he had to promote it at all times because he lost it after he was photographed sipping a can of Coke.

[NTO08]

DUMB move...
As a celebrity, part of what has gotten where you are is your name...the products count on that name to move merchandis­e...that's how it is in America...­you go in knowing you are going to have to be a shill for a product if you take the company's money. No way around it.

[joeyscamps]

GREAT NEW TUNE CALLED

I HATE RAPPERS
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EaeYrMl8aV4

gOBAMA

[PeepingTom]

These millionaire stars are so greedy. WHy do they need to get money simply for wearing something?
Isn't the millions they get for their movies enough?

They are so greedy, they need more millions to wear a stinkin watch? And many of them do overseas advertising as well, so they don't appear greedy in America. You see their ads as soon as you step off the plane in Europe.

[rnb]

And the corporation isn't greedy for wanting an 8 figure return in "damages" for her failing to wear the watch? Is it in any way reasonable to claim that because she failed to wear the watch that they were damaged for 8 figures worth of cash?

[DRaymond]

Well, the damages I think would reasonably include at least the value of the contract that was broken. There is a particular cachet in being able to say that it is the watch that she ALLWAYS wears, and that is what she agreed to and what they paid for. I bet they even provided the watches for free as part of the deal.

[NTO08]

The damages should total what the contract was signed for and what exposure of the watch by her to the public would be...

[bluprojekt]

And this is relevant in these difficult economic times in what way?

"Now Go Away or I Will Taunt You a Second Time."