Reference no: EM133812552

Question

The following is loosely based on real events: Members of the rock group, Led Zeppelin assaulted and battered one of the employees of Bill Graham, a celebrated promoter of rock music concerts from 1965 until his death in a helicopter crash in 1991. At their next major concert for Bill Graham Productions, the musicians in Led Zeppelin stalled before going on stage. While thousands of fans chanted and stomped impatiently, an agent for Led Zeppelin told Graham the band would not go on stage until Graham signed a document that: 1) obligated Bill Graham Productions to indemnify Led Zeppelin and its members if they incurred any liability arising out of the assault and battery, and 2) obligated the band to perform an encore number if the audience demanded more music. The existing contract did not guarantee an encore number at the end of the regular 90-minute set, and Graham liked the idea of a guaranteed encore. However, the prospect of an encore was inconsequential compared to Graham's distaste for the indemnity clause. Accordingly, he initially refused to sign the agreement. However, he soon signed when Led Zeppelin carried through its threat to main backstage and when impatient audience members demanded the band ever more loudly. Graham was greatly concerned about the consequences of canceling the concert, including lost profits after refunding tickets, a general loss of reputation in the industry, and even the possibility of a riot. Later, Graham disavowed the indemnity clause. Issue: Does Bill Graham, acting on behalf of Bill Graham Productions, have a defense to the enforcea.