Stormy Daniels Sues the President

[The Big Dog]

The question was "How was Cohen harmed?"

You didn't answer the question.

Was your answer meant to carry some sort of implicit, "It doesn't matter if Cohen was harmed, because....."?

Cohen was not the party to the contract.

The party to the contract paid 130k and has clearly has been deprived the consideration that was bargained for. Furthermore, the contract requires stormy to turn over tangible materials, and the opposite party is entitled to an order enforcing that provision, and indeed damages would be insufficient and therefore The question of”damages” is not the end game here in any event.

The end game is enforcement of the confidentiality and the assignment clauses, money damages are simply icing on the cake.

 

[acbytesla]

I didn’t. I get that you did not understand the answer but please do not pretend I did not answer the question.

Of course you didn't answer the questions. You weren't in the same ball bark as the questions

Allow me to summarize.


Question 1.So how would Cohen be harmed if Stormy released details of her affair with Trump?

Unanswered by you.

Question 2. If Trump is not a party to the contract, how could Cohen show damages based on a revelation about an affair he wasn't part of?

Unanswered by you.

Question 3. As Loss Leader explained, those huge damage clauses are non-starters. So, Cohen would have to show he was damaged by release of the details of the relationship. How does he go about doing that if he wasn't in the relationship?

Unanswered by you.

 

[acbytesla]

Cohen was not the party to the contract.

The party to the contract paid 130k and has clearly has been deprived the consideration that was bargained for. Furthermore, the contract requires stormy to turn over tangible materials, and the opposite party is entitled to an order enforcing that provision, and indeed damages would be insufficient and therefore The question of”damages” is not the end game here in any event.

The end game is enforcement of the confidentiality and the assignment clauses, money damages are simply icing on the cake.

Then who was a party to the contract? Trump was unaware of the contract so he wasn't a party to the contract either. Then there is no contract.

 

[Meadmaker]

Cohen was not the party to the contract.

The party to the contract paid 130k and has clearly has been deprived the consideration that was bargained for. Furthermore, the contract requires stormy to turn over tangible materials, and the opposite party is entitled to an order enforcing that provision, and indeed damages would be insufficient and therefore The question of”damages” is not the end game here in any event.

The end game is enforcement of the confidentiality and the assignment clauses, money damages are simply icing on the cake.

So, how is Cohen harmed? That's the question.



In your response above, you are noting that he didn't get what he paid for. Ok. In that case, he ought to get his money back. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Ms. Clifford is attempting to give him his money back. This should be easy. Is there some other harm?

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

Cohen was not the party to the contract.

The party to the contract paid 130k and has clearly has been deprived the consideration that was bargained for.

So who is the party who paid the money in your opinion?

 

[SezMe]

14 minutes and 58 seconds

18 minutes and 30 seconds

 

[The Big Dog]

So, how is Cohen harmed? That's the question.



In your response above, you are noting that he didn't get what he paid for. Ok. In that case, he ought to get his money back. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Ms. Clifford is attempting to give him his money back. This should be easy. Is there some other harm?

Cohen was not a party to the contract.

Giving back the money does not relieve stormy of her contractual obligations.

EC is entitled to be placed in the same position that it would be if stormy performed the contract.

There is a remedy known as as “specific performance.” Look that up, it is REALLY important. So EC is entitled to specific performance of the confidentiality provision and the assignment provision, the money damages are relatively inconsequential.

The harm is stormy is breaching her contract, the solution is to require stormy to comply.

 

[SezMe]

Remind us all why we should give two ***** about your your opinion and not the one from an actual lawyer ??

Boy, let me think, whose legal advice sounds better, that of Internet Only Lawyer^tm TBD, or that of legendary criminal defense attorney Mark Geragos ?

Gee, that;s a toughie....

Well, let's say it not quite a close call. Garagos is no Einstein and he's a celebrity whore who has more than one dumb call to his credit(?).

 

[The Big Dog]

So who is the party who paid the money in your opinion?

do not care, the source of the payment was not a “material” element of the contract, if it was, the contract would say so. So long as the money got paid either party could enforce the reimbursement provision.

If you are asking who I think paid it, I would say EC, llc.

 

[SezMe]

I really hope that Trump is heavily pixelated in that case.

Should be easy. One pixel for each hand and one for .... er, other parts. Should cover everything.

 

[SezMe]

do not care, the source of the payment was not a “material” element of the contract, if it was, the contract would say so. So long as the money got paid either party could enforce the reimbursement provision.

If you are asking who I think paid it, I would say EC, llc.

OK, there are two possibilities.

1) The money didn't come from Trump, directly or indirectly. So the $130K is an illegal campaign contributtion and Cohen should get his license yanked.

2) The money did come from Trump, so he's been lying about the affair all along.

Hey, you're the hot-shot legal beagle, you pick.

 

[acbytesla]

Cohen was not a party to the contract.

Giving back the money does not relieve stormy of her contractual obligations.

EC is entitled to be placed in the same position that it would be if stormy performed the contract.

There is a remedy known as as “specific performance.” Look that up, it is REALLY important. So EC is entitled to specific performance of the confidentiality provision and the assignment provision, the money damages are relatively inconsequential.

The harm is stormy is breaching her contract, the solution is to require stormy to comply.

There HAS to be two parties minimum to every contract. Or does there?
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/do...out-stormy-daniels-does-it-affect-her-n863746

Third-party beneficiaries are a common feature of contract law. Indeed, most of us are either third-party beneficiaries under some contract, or we have contracted to enrich donee beneficiaries. Indeed, with just a few changes to the original agreement — like deleting the Trump signature line, which suggests he was a party, not a beneficiary — this “beneficiary” argument might have been airtight.

Is the current Daniels/EC/Trump agreement, as worded, crystal clear as to whether Trump is a party or a third-party beneficiary?

In a word: No.

Danny Cevallos is an MSNBC legal analyst. Follow @CevallosLaw on Twitter.

Finally, it really is impossible for the Court to order compliance. It is my understanding that they can award damages that ARE not punitive so the damages MUST be ascertained. How do they do that?

 

[The Big Dog]

OK, there are two possibilities.

1) The money didn't come from Trump, directly or indirectly. So the $130K is an illegal campaign contributtion and Cohen should get his license yanked.

2) The money did come from Trump, so he's been lying about the affair all along.

Hey, you're the hot-shot legal beagle, you pick.

Gosh, false dichotomies shore do make it easy to argue!

Or maybe the money was paid to keep his wife from finding out that trump was being extorted by the star of toxxic ***loads 6 during an unbelievably stressful time in their marriage.

 

[acbytesla]

do not care, the source of the payment was not a “material” element of the contract, if it was, the contract would say so. So long as the money got paid either party could enforce the reimbursement provision.

If you are asking who I think paid it, I would say EC, llc.

Parties entering into contracts must do so with 'clean hands. So I could see a judge deciding it very well is material.

 

[The Big Dog]

There HAS to be two parties minimum to every contract. Or does there?
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/do...out-stormy-daniels-does-it-affect-her-n863746



Finally, it really is impossible for the Court to order compliance. It is my understanding that they can award damages that ARE not punitive so the damages MUST be ascertained. How do they do that?

Didn’t look up specific performance. It is cool, literally no on expected you to.

 

[The Big Dog]

Parties entering into contracts must do so with 'clean hands. So I could see a judge deciding it very well is material.

love the two random claims slammed together..

 

[Meadmaker]

The harm is stormy is breaching her contract, the solution is to require stormy to comply.

Ok. So now, everyone should agree that TBD has answered the question.

Now those interested can debate whether that answer is correct. My understanding of the law is that you cannot have a valid contract in which the only agreement is to agree, and the only harm for non-compliance is that the agreement wasn't kept. My understanding of contract law is that both parties to the contract must benefit from the contract. It sounds to me like Cohen is getting nothing from the contract beyond the existence of the contract, in which case, my understanding is that it is not a valid contract. However, I am not lawyer, and I would accept correction from anyone who is.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Norman Goldman, who is a lawyer, has expressed the opinion that the harm would have to be to Trump (David Dennison). The max fine would be in accordance to the contract ($1 Million). This is because the contract fine is liquid damages, I think he called it, and can not be punitive.

 

[The Big Dog]

Ok. So now, everyone should agree that TBD has answered the question.

Now those interested can debate whether that answer is correct. My understanding of the law is that you cannot have a valid contract in which the only agreement is to agree, and the only harm for non-compliance is that the agreement wasn't kept. My understanding of contract law is that both parties to the contract must benefit from the contract. It sounds to me like Cohen is getting nothing from the contract beyond the existence of the contract, in which case, my understanding is that it is not a valid contract. However, I am not lawyer, and I would accept correction from anyone who is.

Cohen is not a party to the contract.

By the way, a party who got 130k and claims that the other person got nothing in return is what we call a real nonstarter.

 

[acbytesla]

Didn’t look up specific performance. It is cool, literally no on expected you to.

I've never seen anyone dodge questions like this. Always pointing to other sources.