(12-18-2004) U2 sues stylist over sale of 'gifts' - The Sunday Times*

[HelloAngel]

U2 sues stylist over sale of 'gifts'


U2 IS suing a former stylist for the return of mementoes, including a hat and trousers worn by Bono, and a pair of tour mugs, writes Jan Battles.

The group, whose latest album has gone to No 1 in more than 25 countries, has lodged a case in the Circuit Court in Dublin seeking to retrieve the items valued at £3,500 from Lola Cashman, who worked as the band’s stylist in the late 1980s.

Cashman, who wrote an unauthorised account of her dealings with the band last year, tried to sell the memorabilia at Christie’s in London a few years ago. When the auctioneers contacted the band’s management to authenticate the items, U2 said they were not Cashman’s to sell and threatened legal action.

Cashman claims the band gave her a number of items, including the hat worn by Bono on the cover of Rattle and Hum, a sweatshirt, silver earrings and the mugs, when she worked with them during their Joshua Tree and Rattle and Hum tours.

Some of the gifts had been signed to her from them, she said. She has questioned how the band could dispute ownership when her name was on them. She told The Sunday Times at the time: “I felt so upset at first but now I am angry. I worked with the boys for two years and was very close to them, particularly Bono. He helps all these charities and is seen as caring and generous but then he is getting funny about me selling some old mugs, for goodness sake.”

Because of the row over ownership, Christie’s, which valued the items at £3,500, have held onto them until ownership is resolved.

Bono, The Edge, Larry Mullen and Adam Clayton will be represented in the Circuit Court by Philip Lee Solictors of Dublin. A spokesman for U2 said the band would not be commenting on the case.

Christie’s said: “In view of the litigation (to which Christie’s is not a party) it is not appropriate for us to comment.”

In her book, Inside the Zoo with U2: My Life with the World’s Biggest Rock Band, published last year, Cashman revealed that Bono was obsessed with his appearance and wore shoes with lifts to appear taller.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2091-1408718,00.html

 

[maude]

Of course I don't know all the details, but it seems to me that when you give someone something it becomes their property, to smash, throw away, sell or cherish as they wish. If U2 did give Lola Cashman these mementos, then I don't see how they could possibly have an legal right to keep her from selling them.

 

[biff]

Of course I don't know all the details, but it seems to me that when you give someone something it becomes their property, to smash, throw away, sell or cherish as they wish. If U2 did give Lola Cashman these mementos, then I don't see how they could possibly have an legal right to keep her from selling them.

Yes, that's right. If thay gave her those momemtos....

However, I have read her book, and well, all I can say is that she comes across, in her own book, as a really awful person. Presumably, she has made an attempt to portray herself in the best possible light, but she still comes across as someone completely self-absorbed and deeply unpleasant. And, at the very least, a stretcher of the truth.

 

[maude]

I haven't read the book but what I've read about her, and the things she wrote, does make her seem nasty and vindictive. Still, nasty person or not, if U2 gave her those things, and some she says are even autographed to her, she should be able to sell them.

I think that there's probably a good chance some of the mementos are stolen, otherwise it seems ludicrous for U2 to attempt a lawsuit. Being their stylist, she would certaintly have had easy access to nicking a few items.

 

[Lucy3011]

Exactly. If they were going to sue her, and they actually DID give her those items, they wouldn't have a leg to stand on. So why would they bother?

Seems to me this article is either rubbish, or the items are in fact not hers to sell.

 

[LostAtMoon]

However, I have read her book, and well, all I can say is that she comes across, in her own book, as a really awful person. Presumably, she has made an attempt to portray herself in the best possible light, but she still comes across as someone completely self-absorbed and deeply unpleasant. And, at the very least, a stretcher of the truth.

Silly useless shallow woman.

 

[seajewel]

I read her book - it was the worst - some of seemed so far fetched! A waste of money. Guess she didn't make enough so she needs to sell some things. She's tacky, very tacky!

 

[Party Boy]

I know this is going to sound strange, but from U2's point of view, in terms of the value of the items in question - £3500, is all the publicity that will be involved with this case worth it? It does seem a bit of a strange move by the band, unless there is a lot of sentimental attachment to the items in question - the hat maybe, but a couple of mugs?? Very strange. Does seem like there may be more than meets the eye to this case....

 

[TheBrazilianFly]

If they really gave that to her as a gift she should keep it as a gift. I don't think the boys would hand her stuff like that so she could sell them away and get the money out of something that people are buying because it's U2 related and has nothing to do with her. Of course U2 is not after the money of those things, the money there means nothing to them and the publicity doesn't help, they're making a statement saying that they just don't want to see someone getting money out of their expenses like that. This woman has no class or respect for the band.

 

[U2girl]

Cash-man. Quite a telling last name, I think.

I think the band is upset at the thought she wants to sell what was meant as a gift for her, and to make money out of their stuff.
Whether or not it's technically hers or theirs isn't that imporant IMO.

 

[Party Boy]

if something has been given to her as a gift, isn't she in her own rights to sell it if she likes??

 

[Elvis]

I've actually had contact with both sides relating to somethings that had been posted here (and since removed) on the forums quite awhile ago. I wont slander Cashman for fear of a lawsuit, lol, but the letter I had gotten from her lawyer/solicitor was grabbing at straws and to me seemed vindictive torwards U2.

 

[Hallelujah Here She Comes]

I know this is going to sound strange, but from U2's point of view, in terms of the value of the items in question - £3500, is all the publicity that will be involved with this case worth it? It does seem a bit of a strange move by the band, unless there is a lot of sentimental attachment to the items in question - the hat maybe, but a couple of mugs?? Very strange. Does seem like there may be more than meets the eye to this case....

Well, if she did steal them, they might be doing this to discourage other people that work from them from stealing stuff and trying to sell it. But maybe they just didn't like her book.

 

[mkdominatr]

If I remember correctly, when her book was released, the band wasnt happy and neither were the fans. Seems as though she wants the trouble for some reason or likes to cause it.

 

[Squire]

"The group, whose latest album has gone to No 1 in more than 25 countries..."

25 countries?? wasn't it 34??

 

[maude]

I know this is going to sound strange, but from U2's point of view, in terms of the value of the items in question - £3500, is all the publicity that will be involved with this case worth it? It does seem a bit of a strange move by the band, unless there is a lot of sentimental attachment to the items in question - the hat maybe, but a couple of mugs?? Very strange. Does seem like there may be more than meets the eye to this case....

Yes, it does strike me as strange. Even if she did steal them, unless as you suggested, there is a lot of sentimental attachment to these items, it does seem much ado over nothing. I do suspect there's more involved in this case than a disagreement of ownership.

 

[ultrraviolette]

Yes, it does strike me as strange. Even if she did steal them, unless as you suggested, there is a lot of sentimental attachment to these items, it does seem much ado over nothing. I do suspect there's more involved in this case than a disagreement of ownership.

I agree, there's probably more to this story.

 

[beli]

Must be more to it. If the items were stolen U2 could lay criminal charges and that would be the end of it.

 

[Secretagentwoma]

U2 sues stylist

I have read Lola's book and I would be sueing her too (if I were U2). She doesn't have one nice thing to say about them. I bet they are more angry about the book then about the items she is trying to sell.

 

[youtwohearts]

I agree that there is more to the story. They probably couldn't stop her from publishing the book so they dislike her for writing it. I did read the book and I found it foolish but funny. I am sure the boys have better things to do with their time than to sue her for $3500.00 in merchandise, there HAS to be more going on than what they are telling us.

 

[forbonou2]

I am very suspicious about this, since she would have access to Alot of things, and in a situation where they would have to be able to trust her, or anyone else in her situation. I certainly would not sell something the band Gave to me!

 

[sue4u2]

Sure is taking a long time for this to get to court. It's been going on for at least a year now, I think.
And yes, I'm almost positive there is more than than the value of the items at play here. Since I don't have all the facts, I will reserve any opinions for later. but.. I'm not too sure we will ever know all the details. I wouldn't think it's something U2 want's plastered all over the news. Even though it probably will be. Especially if Lola wants to use it to try to sell more of her lousy f'ing books.