30 Jul
2015
30 Jul
'15
10:06 a.m.
From: Evan Koblentz
we always require a signed contract with strict rules
about how our
artifacts can/can't be used by renters.
I hope the contract includes a very sizeable 'liquidated damages' clause
which comes into force when the artifact is significantly damaged (i.e.
scraped paint, scratches, etc don't count) or destroyed; that number should
be 5-10 times its assessed value.
That would be to stop people like the film crew we heard of who borrowed
something, deliberately destroyed it as part of a scene, and them calmly paid
the lender the assessed value. If they're looking at having to pay a _ton_ of
money if they pull that stunt, they're less likely to.
Noel
30 Jul
30 Jul
10:10 a.m.
I hope the contract includes a very sizeable 'liquidated damages' clause
which comes into force when the artifact is significantly damaged (i.e.
scraped paint, scratches, etc don't count) or destroyed; that number should
be 5-10 times its assessed value.
That would be to stop people like the film crew we heard of who borrowed
something, deliberately destroyed it as part of a scene, and them calmly paid
the lender the assessed value. If they're looking at having to pay a _ton_ of
money if they pull that stunt, they're less likely to.
As others have said, that 'liquidated damges' amount may be lost in the noise
compared to the total budget for the film. So be careful. Be very careful.
And no matter what the amount is, remember you can't hack banknotes. If it's
a rare machine, one you have spent a long time tracking down, etc, then the
money is probably worth a lot less to you. There are items in my collection that
I would not lend out even if the amount was say $10million. Period.
-tony
10:12 a.m.
On Thu, 30 Jul 2015, Noel Chiappa wrote:
That would be to stop people like the film crew we
heard of who borrowed
something, deliberately destroyed it as part of a scene, and them calmly paid
the lender the assessed value. If they're looking at having to pay a _ton_ of
money if they pull that stunt, they're less likely to.
You are assuming that there will be somebody ON SET from accounting to
point out the cost.
3432
days inactive
3432
days old
2 comments
3 participants
participants (3)
-
ard＠p850ug1.demon.co.uk -
cisin＠xenosoft.com -
jnc＠mercury.lcs.mit.edu