If Trump Can Be Bound By and Enforce An Agreement He Was Not Aware of...

[jberryhill]

9. Let me answer your subject line question first

Last edited Fri Mar 9, 2018, 10:38 AM - Edit history (1)

You pose a false dichotomy. In point of fact, her attorney would not know if Trump signed another copy. We all agree that Trump did not sign the copy filed with the Complaint. But the agreement by its own terms provides for other copies which can also be signed. Lawyers do this ALL OF THE TIME, particularly now that most agreements are reduced to .pdf and then emailed around. Very rarely these days do I end up with a single .pdf that has everyone's signatures on it. One party signs theirs in the UK, another in the US, another in China, etc.. They all sign their copy. For enforcement purposes, I will usually require mutual execution and delivery by such-and-such a date, so that everyone has at least one copy signed by each other party.

What's more salient to the point above is what is NOT in this contract, which you usually find in a lot of contracts. Normally, there will be an assignment and delegation clause which specifies the terms under which rights can be assigned or duties delegated. Again, normally, you expect to find that the assignment or delegation clause requires mutual written consent. This one does not, so it reverts to default contract law under which assignable rights can be assigned and delegable duties can be delegated.

I'll touch on your points, but understand that this is not a Contracts course. I could do an hour on each of those clauses.

2.5 says that the subject matter of the agreement are any claims DD might have against PP for releasing the information. Again, claims can be assigned. In fact, that is required in, for example, your auto insurance contract. People buy and sell their legal claims every day. You can sell your right to sue someone under any contract you have, provided the contract does not prohibit it.

2.6 is a bog standard material terms clause.

4.3 is a reps and warranties clause. It means that the parties have entered into the contract on the basis of the reps and warranties stated therein, and that if any of the reps and warranties were false, then one can also sue on any of the reps and warranties having been false. For example, I sell you a horse for $100 and tell you the horse is in good shape. You pay me $100 under a contract which states it is the full agreement. You find out the horse is lame. Did I violate the contract? In one sense, no, because it was a horse, and we exchanged the money for the horse. The contract was performed from that perspective. I did not fail to perform the contract. What I DID do is to breach a warranty IN the contract. So, it is ordinary in written contract to include specific reps and warranties to say - this contract is violated because the stated reps and warranties, which were specific inducements to enter into the contract, were not true and you relied on them as a part of making the contract.

6.0 is a standard release clause. I ran a redlight and hit your car. You and I agree to settle that incident. You might have ten different claims under ten different legal theories against me arising out of that incident. Your car was mashed up, you were late to your audition and didn't get the part you wanted, you suffered a broken finger, etc.. These kinds of clauses avoid slicing and dicing legal claims arising out of a set of circumstances, to avoid someone coming up with a new claim or theory based on the operative events. If I offer you $10,000 to settle the claim, we are not going to part out the car, the hypothetical claim you might have gotten the part in the movie, the broken finger etc. Also, I might be the guy who stole your lawnmower last week - whatever. The point of this clause is that in exchange for the $10,000, we are done and done - regardless of whether you go to the shop next week after we sign and the mechanic tells you that you need a bunch of repairs because the accident dislodged some part of the engine. Doesn't matter. You released me from all claims arising from the accident. We can go further, as this one does, and include a release of all known and unknown claims you might have against me, and that would include you later finding out that I was the guy who stole your lawnmower.

8.6 says that the parties admit it is a valid agreement when signed by all parties. And here you are ignoring the fact that the contract ALSO expressly says that there can be multiple copies signed in counterpart, and there is no obligation as to when it can be signed, or whether a signatory is required to deliver a signed copy.

-------


I see a bunch of issues with the claim stated in the civil complaint and, no, her lawyer is not going to point those out on the TeeVee machine. At the end of the day, so what? What's it to me, you, or anyone else whether or not she has the thing invalidated, really?

The filing has provided us with strong evidence that, good golly, Donald Trump was banging Stormy Daniels in 2005/6 or whatever. I'm sure they were both heartbroken when their romance ended, and she misses his tender embrace. She could have told us all about it back in 2016. She chose not to. Instead, she hired Keith Davidson, an attorney who specializes in brokering sex tapes, evidence of infidelity, etc., and gets money for those sorts of things that people consider to be a form of blackmail, and she got $130,000 to agree not to talk about it. It was late October and in a few days Trump was going to lose the election, so everyone assumed. Now, she has seller's remorse, and having accepted the $130,000 wants to make a career out of all the things she agreed to forego in exchange for that $130,000. She's not acting out of any sense of civic interest. But as far as we in the gallery are concerned, the way that this was filed (and not under seal as one would normally expect in enforcement of a confidential agreement), provides us with public amusement and pretty strong evidence that, indeed, Donald Trump - who is a thrice married serial adulterer - shockingly remained a serial adulterer in his third marriage. Whoopee! Amazingly, yes, it appears that Donald Trump was banging yet another woman while married.

But I don't get the emotional investment in Daniels or whether the claim defined in the complaint does or does not hold water. What do we get out of it either way?

What IS interesting is whether there was an FEC violation. What is thoroughly not interesting is whether Daniels can get out from under the agreement she voluntarily made, so that she can make even more money as "the porn star who banged Trump".

But, since the contract is invalid, as I keep hearing on the TeeVee machine, what has her lawyer said about any attempt to refund the $130,000 she received under this "invalid contract"? Did he mention that? Or is the idea here that the contract is "invalid" but she gets to keep the $130,000?