Quote:
Originally Posted by OneHungLo
The problem is, they have 22 girls claiming they (GDP) misrepresented the contract.
If it was just one girl that was making this claim it wouldn't be a problem.
22 is a problem. It shows they were patently trying to deceive these girls and that deception can null and void any contract.
|
I am talking about their claim, that they did not know the content would be published online, because this seems to be the most important thing they bring up. It looks like some of them signed the contract only because they though it would be a private video - well this argument would be quite invalid if the contract stated they agreed with publishing.
Just because a contract is nullified, it does not mean it can't be used as an evidence in court showing they KNEW it was intended to go online. I bet they didn't even read it before signing it. Beside that, a court has to rule a contract void - and that has not happened yet, has it?