Apparently, he did this because he found out about her cheating on him, and instead of lashing out at her, he played it cool and convinced her to get a tattoo so he could get back at her. She, in return, has hit him with a $100,000 lawsuit.
The article above reports that Brovent tried to have Fitzgerald charged with assault, but she could not because she had signed a consent form agreeing the tattoo design was "at the artist's discretion".
Brovent claims she was "tricked" into agreeing to it after getting a little drunk, but still the phrase "at the artist's discretion" intrigues me.
I know what Fitzgerald did was terrible, because now this poor girl has to walk around with that on her back for the rest of her life, but I don't think she has any right to sue him due to the fact that she agreed to it being at his discretion.
In America, a signature is a very powerful thing, as it ratifies almost any legal document. In my opinion, the fact that she signed a consent form allowing him to choose the design, although she apparently had a specific one in mind already, means she has to deal with whatever he decided to choose. It's terrible for her, but she deserves it for being foolish enough to sign that.
What do you think? Should Rossie Brovent win the lawsuit? Are signatures too powerful in the United States?
Hahahahaha! Before I say anything, I just want to say that this is a really harsh punishment even for adultery.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, America does take signatures very seriously, but one thing to remember is that she HAD to sign that paper in order for her to get the tattoo she thought she was getting. If I wanted a tattoo of heart and signed that consent form, but ended up with a cuss word on my neck wouldn't that be just as wrong? The only difference is that I didn't cheat on the tattoo artist. People may not defend her because it wouldn't have happened if she didn't cheat; "she started it", so to speak. .
I think that there can be valid arguments on both sides. Like Bridget said, "she started it," but then on the other side, it seems like a very manipulative thing to do. It was also very immature and does not reflect good morals. It actually seems to reflect Hammurabi's value of "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth." I'm pretty sure that although it's pretty hilarious upon first glance, what both girlfriend and boyfriend did was inappropriate.
ReplyDeleteTotally agree with what Bridget said, the tattoo of a huge turd is awful and kind of sucks for the girl. But I think that cheating is bad and tattooing a huge poo to someone's back is also bad but I dont think he should be sued. Because if a signature is no longer significant and do not hold as much power as they currently do then what will? A signature has so much weight and it can protect someone as well as harm someone but if we take power away from it they what will we empower and give just as much importance to? Removing power from a signature will just result in trusting power in something else. I think that a signature should still be as powerful as it is in order to maintain somehting that ensures value or promise.
ReplyDeleteSome may argue that she got what she deserves. The fact of the matter is, she is lucky he didn't decide to murder her and her lover.
ReplyDelete