Lawsuit against New York photographer continues

Have you ever found yourself in one of those fights where you long ago realized that your position was flawed, but you've just gone too far to give up now?  I wonder if that's how Todd Remis is feeling these days.  As reported by a variety of news sources this week, Remis is continuing in his lawsuit against the photographer he hired to forever memorialize the pledge of eternal fidelity that he and Milena Grzibovska made at their 2003 wedding.  The pledge of eternal fidelity actually translated into more of a 5-year program when the couple began divorce proceedings in 2008.

According to Remis' suit, the photographer did "shoddy" work and left before some critical moments in the reception.  What really sets Remis' case apart from all the run-of-the-mill wedding photography lawsuits is the fact that Remis is not looking for a reimbursement of funds; instead, he wants the photographer to pay to recreate his wedding and take the pictures that were missed that day.

Although Remis has been ridiculed by the press for going to such lengths to preserve memories of a marriage that ended so quickly, he does have at least one interesting legal point.  Generally speaking, in a breach of contract case, courts are reluctant to order what is known as "specific performance."  Specific performance is just what it sounds like: a court order to do what the contract required.  Usually, courts just order breaching parties to pay money damages in order to put the non-breaching party in the position they would have been in had the contract been properly performed.  However, the court does make rare exceptions when no legal remedy is available or the legal remedy would be woefully inadequate.

Although it is very rare to see specific performance in the case of services, Remis could make an argument that what he was paying for was really goods, namely the finished photographs.  When dealing with goods, courts will only order specific performance of a contract where the goods involved are very unique.  If, through some momentary lapse in judgment, I ended up as the attorney presenting Remis' case, I would argue that the goods involved - wedding photographs - are extremely unique because a photographer is more than just someone pushing a button on a camera; a photographer is an artist with a unique style.  And the fact that Remis wants pictures to remember his ill-fated marriage only bolsters the argument that he needs those specific goods.  He certainly doesn't have the bride around to remind him of that day anymore.

Of course, what really kills Remis' case is that he does have some pictures, and the ones that have been released on the internet are pretty nice, in my opinion.  If nothing else, though, perhaps he could hire someone to photograph the whole bloody fight and the litigation process, which with a little luck may end up lasting longer than the marriage itself.

To get all the latest info on funny legal news, dumb criminals, crime humor, and more, subscribe to this blog by entering your email in the box on the right side of the blog or follow me on Twitter.

See also:

Always time for a last hurrah...

This song was made for you and me...

When good claymation goes bad

"911 - What's your delusion?"

Arizona man seeks to enforce adultery laws

Finding the Right Location for Your Business 101