I didn’t read the contract nor even know if its been posted. Yet, if it did categorically state what benefits, et al, she’d receive if she signed it and they didn’t provide said benefits, then clearly they violated the basic tenet of contract law.
I could see them winning a case based on editorial discretion (I used to work for various magazines, and there were good reasons we didn’t publish some of the articles we solicited) but that’s the kind of thing that would require evidence to back up the claim. In addition, it’s hard for me to see how – if you’re framing this as a journalism case and not a hush-money case – the NDA part can possibly stand up once there’s a clear decision not to publish. And if – as McDougal apparently alleges – the decision not to publish was made before the contract was signed, well…
IIRC one of the biggest problems here was that both McDougal and Daniels had as their lawyer a guy named Keith Davidson who was also working with Cohen, a flagrant conflict of interest that’s obviously unethical and hugely harmful to the women. I don’t think the suit’s going to get dismissed, put it that way.
But, but enquiring minds want to know!
(Anyone remember that ad?)
@mattinpa I’m curious to find out if they were directed to Keith Davidson by someone, and Cohen is the most likely candidate, affiiliated with Trump.
And as a point of general points, I have a real hard time feeling sorry for McDougal, who believed that she and Spankee were in love and that he was going to provide her an apartment in Dump’s Dump. That’s almost prima facie evidence that she’s mentally unqualified to sign any contract. But hey, I woke up in a bad mood.
IIRC, URC.
(haha)
Uh… Quite choice of photo there. No face, Playboy bunny necklace, and barely concealed boobs.
Well, except she did also vote for Spanky, so that sort of cuts out the “sour grapes” angle, doesn’t it?
UROK.
It seems that the preview pic is just cropped to her torso instead of face…
But yes, can an editor please fix? Thx
It is unimaginable to me that an unpaid woman would have sex with him.
It is unthinkable that after her experience she would still vote for him.
Here’s the thing about contracts of this nature, there is almost certainly a time after which, if the story is not published, the author can seek other sources. That is in the contract there must be a period of time by which the National Enquirer has to publish the story or by default provision (the law will provide) a time period with the same result. Furthermore, to buy a story of public concern (which is what a story about having an affair with the president of the USA is) in order to kill it could also be voided as harmful to the public good. There are also the breach of contract issues raised by McDougal and potential issues over fraud, like to buy the story with the intent to kill it without revealing that fact. Add too all of that the questions over her representation:
Or to put another way, I think the Trump side is playing for time and trying to run up McDougal’s legal expenses because as far as the law and facts are concerned, I’d rather be her attorney than theirs.
Couldn’t this be considered an illegal campaign contribution? A contribution can be a service rendered, not just cash. Buying and burying a story about a Playboy model having an affair with a married candidate for President certainly sounds like a service rendered to Trump’s campaign.
One thing about this whole McDougal story that just blows me away but which I haven’t seen discussed anywhere is the part where after their first session, Trump throws $200 on the bed. Two hundred bucks for an evening with the Playmate of the Year?! $200 is about the going rate for an hour with a street hooker, isn’t it? Ten times that much for a mere hour with McDougal would likely have been more in line with reality if she was in it for the money. What kind of a cheap SOB would even think of tossing her a couple Franklins? Oh yeah, Trump. She said she was shocked. I should guess so! Yet she talks about how he always treated her with respect. Yeah, right.