A Question For the Attorneys Here…
- Thread starter BubsFinn
- Start date
Alright op. If you didn’t get the first 2 pages or initial anything, share the details. Please god, anything but politics.
Never too late. You're smarter than half the students (hell, most of) in my contracts class.
Sure, but… imagine this from the company (assuming it even still exists (doubtful) and assuming they have paperwork (even more doubtful)).
“Coercion? No, not at all. We gave him the entire document and plenty of time to review. It’s been awhile but we always have everyone the documents and let them move into a side room to read through them. That’s been our practice forever. Here’s the full copy of what he signed. Not sure why he would claim he didn’t see the first two pages. Who would sign just a signature page?”
I never saw the other two pages of the document. I only knew it was three pages because -PAGE 3- was printed at the bottom. When I handed the paper back to the person who presented it, I never saw or heard anything about it again. Nothing I witnessed would be, to my knowledge, considered illegal, just consensual acts between (sometimes several) obvious adults that I'm sure they would rather not have discussed. The “main event” of the evening happened in a different room, but certain acts were carried out into our area.
I will add that the event was held in a somewhat remote location and I arrived with the caterer in their van. It was obvious my choices were to sign, work, and get paid or not sign, sit in the van, not get paid, and never be asked to help the caterer again. It was a solid side gig to help make ends meet back then. And being young and broke, I figured as long as no one ask me to do anything I didn't want to do, it's all good.
All this stuff that's coming out about Diddy and his parties is what reminded me of the gig, so nothing traumatizing happened. Frankly, I focused on doing the job and I tried to keep my eyes down. It all went as expected and without any problems, which is unusual for off site catering like that.
There is probably a reason why OP didn't want to answer my original question. Not all gang bangs are sexy.
Behind the green door is already in the public domain, and Ben Davidson is long dead
You planned on starting your own Gyro cart on the ped mall somewhere in the future?
Yes it will be called old farts of the 80's cart 😀 Gyros for $2.25You planned on starting your own Gyro cart on the ped mall somewhere in the future?
If you try to toss the NDA, they'll bring forward witnesses who challenge you and say you are lying.
You'll lose.
The rest is details.
You'll lose.
The rest is details.
This is a good response. My gut reaction is that this would be enforceable, but I need to know more.
Hitting the Gyro cart after staggering out of Vito's was my 3rd year at Iowa. Unfortunately, about 20% of the gyros ended up on the ground by the Peeing Ladies.
That's where it came from.
He should write a new book called, "I Witnessed A Gay Orgy and It Wasn't Okay."
I bet our paths crossed haha. Those days were fun in Iowa City. Now the ped mall is dead or bangers shooting.
I don't see how since I don't know the names of any of the attendees or if they have anything to do with said election.
Now this is a thread I can get behind. Arguments about the law of contracts coupled with OP working a catered Eyes Wide Shut party in his younger days.
I think Aurora's inquiries are spot on, and my initial lawyer reaction was also to say "it depends." Mutual assent or meeting of the minds is necessary to form an enforceable contract, and if you truly did not see the two main pages, end of story, you have a strong argument that there was not mutual asset to at least some of the unknown terms of the agreement. Contextual factors before and after can definitely change things, and as Aurora noted, you clearly assented to some notion of nondisclosure about something.
Mind you, this likely would play out, if at all, as you getting sued and having to defend against the existence of a valid contract. Rules on parol evidence (stuff outside the written agreement) vary among jurisdictions, so the specifics will be dispositive. There would also be the issue of really old and stale evidence, written or testimonial, that would make the trial pretty messy.
FWIW, there was a case I remember from law school that gives a decent overview of this type of issue. It had to do with an arbitration clause in the click wrap agreements online that none of us read. Nevada law, so it might vary from your specific situation:
“The arbitration provision found in the Zappos.com Terms of Use purportedly binds all users of the website by virtue of their browsing. However, the advent of the Internet has not changed the basic requirements of a contract, and there is no agreement where there is no acceptance, no meeting of the minds, and no manifestation of assent. A party cannot assent to terms of which it has no knowledge or constructive notice, and a highly inconspicuous hyperlink buried among a sea of links does not provide such notice. Because Plaintiffs did not assent to the terms, no contract exists, and they cannot be compelled to arbitrate.”
law.justia.com
I think Aurora's inquiries are spot on, and my initial lawyer reaction was also to say "it depends." Mutual assent or meeting of the minds is necessary to form an enforceable contract, and if you truly did not see the two main pages, end of story, you have a strong argument that there was not mutual asset to at least some of the unknown terms of the agreement. Contextual factors before and after can definitely change things, and as Aurora noted, you clearly assented to some notion of nondisclosure about something.
Mind you, this likely would play out, if at all, as you getting sued and having to defend against the existence of a valid contract. Rules on parol evidence (stuff outside the written agreement) vary among jurisdictions, so the specifics will be dispositive. There would also be the issue of really old and stale evidence, written or testimonial, that would make the trial pretty messy.
FWIW, there was a case I remember from law school that gives a decent overview of this type of issue. It had to do with an arbitration clause in the click wrap agreements online that none of us read. Nevada law, so it might vary from your specific situation:
“The arbitration provision found in the Zappos.com Terms of Use purportedly binds all users of the website by virtue of their browsing. However, the advent of the Internet has not changed the basic requirements of a contract, and there is no agreement where there is no acceptance, no meeting of the minds, and no manifestation of assent. A party cannot assent to terms of which it has no knowledge or constructive notice, and a highly inconspicuous hyperlink buried among a sea of links does not provide such notice. Because Plaintiffs did not assent to the terms, no contract exists, and they cannot be compelled to arbitrate.”
MDL No. 2357 - IN RE: Zappos.com, Inc., Customer Data Security Breach Litigation, No. 3:2012cv00325 - Document 21 (D. Nev. 2012)
MDL No. 2357 - IN RE: Zappos.com, Inc., Customer Data Security Breach Litigation, No. 3:2012cv00325 - Document 21 (D. Nev. 2012) case opinion from the District of Nevada U.S. Federal District Court
law.justia.com
I'm going to let @gohawks69 be lead counsel. I'll be a personal assistant. But OP better have:
We can do it on the cheap 😉I'm going to let @gohawks69 be lead counsel. I'll be a personal assistant. But OP better have:
We sign ndas on a daily basis. One way, two way, licensing agreements, complex contracts. You expect litigation on a 25 year old nda where you only had the signatory page? In Johnson County, Iowa, a judge would tell you not to waste his or her time. Even if your nda was for an orgy in an alien spacecraft at area 51 and you catered the event, most courts would throw out the plaintiff. A majority of our ndas have explicit times that they are in force and are generally 1 to 5 years. The analysis here is like first year law students who spew crap for issue spotting so you get a good grade as a 1L in contracts. It has no basis in most courts of first choice, aka district courts in Iowa. If you are under the anticipation that an nda will prevent both parties from non disclosure, I would laugh at you and say, people squeal all the time.
Now, be a man and tell us who was at the orgy?
Possible solution: we form a crack litigation team and get everyone who has, does, or will ever visit this site to advance us a sizeable retainer to represent them in their perverted desire to learn what OP saw at the sex party. Think that's enough to preserve the privilege? If not, who cares because
Damn it Jimmy, you beat me to it!I'm going to let @gohawks69 be lead counsel. I'll be a personal assistant. But OP better have:
LMAO. It isn't worth the time or stress not to be paid
I know that the attorneys on here practice a wide variety of law. Given some of our posters, there is money to be made on HBOT Legal services.
Have to admit … after 33 years of litigating commercial contracts in state and federal jurisdictions from California to Maine, including multitudes of cases in which one party contended it did not assent to the terms, didn’t have an adequate opportunity to review the contractual terms, and/or one party had vastly unfair advantage in the contracting process, I didn’t expect someone to claim that my “take” is no better than a 1L in Professor Vernon’s Contracts class (God rest his soul).
As for your denigration of “issue spotting,” I’d submit that the very essence of contract litigation (and most, if not all, litigation) involves the ability to analyze, “spot issues,” and develop a record relating to those specific issues.
in my experience, the attorneys who insist there is only one issue of consequence in a case frequently get their asses handed to them by the attorneys who can “spot” multiple issues.
FWIW.
P.S. For those who had the phenomenal experience to have Professor Vernon teach contracts, I’ll never forget the first question I heard as a law student - posed by him - “Replevin for a cow. What in the world does that mean?” Wonderful man. Brilliant legal mind.
