Jay Cee Gee wrote: shanky wrote:
Seems an unlikely basis for successful action since she accepted the money and acted (initially) as if the contract was in force
I wonder if this is more likely an opportunity to remove her obligation to hand over the pics/dress so she can then publsih them and maximise the $ value of her moment in the sun.
Yeah, any analysis I've read suggests the 'he didn't sign' argument is a loser. It's almost certainly designed to try and get some detail out in public through the court case which would then be outside of the NDA. And to give her more publcity so that she could just try and ignore the NDA and make more money than she'd pay for breaching it.
Not a Lawyer, but didn't Trumps lawyer say that he paid the money, & it was nothing to do with Trump.
So how does the fact that the contract was cast as being between, Trump & Pornstar, when the Lawyer has now gone on the record, as casting the contract as between Lawyer & Pornstar, effect the validity of the contract ?
It's all immaterial really; as Trump has always used lawsuits as a way of stifling comment; & used his deeper pockets to try & scare away challengers. When he & his lawyers actually faced competent appellants, they pis
sed their pants, & settled rather than face the prospect of sitting in court & having Donald have to Testify (See Trump University).