Realist, not conformist analysis of the latest financial, business and political news

Stormy Daniels To Repay Trump – No Hush, No Hush Money

This is a potential rather than a reality as yet but it looks like Stormy Daniels might have to repay the $130,000 in hush money she got under that non-disclosure agreement. The thought being that if there’s no hush then there’s no hush money. Given that a non-disclosure agreement is a pretty simple piece of civil law that seems the right way to judge it too. Here’s a contract between two people, here the action that must be performed – or not in this case – and here’s the consideration to go with it. Don’t perform the action – or do the one you shouldn’t – and that consideration ain’t payable or is repayable.

Doesn’t seem that complex:

[perfectpullquote align=”full” bordertop=”false” cite=”” link=”” color=”” class=”” size=””] A federal judge in Los Angeles on Thursday dismissed ex-porn star Stormy Daniels’ lawsuit seeking to void a nondisclosure agreement with President Trump about an alleged affair. Both sides claimed victory after the ruling, but the Los Angeles Times reported that Daniels, whose real name is Stephanie Clifford, may have to return a $130,000 payment from Trump’s ex-lawyer Michael Cohen. [/perfectpullquote]

Why would anyone think differently in fact?

[perfectpullquote align=”full” bordertop=”false” cite=”” link=”” color=”” class=”” size=””]During the course of the case, Cohen and Trump agreed with Daniels saying the agreement would not be enforced. But, Daniels’ attorney Michael Avenatti said his client wanted the judge to rule that what Cohen and Trump did was illegal.
Instead, Daniels’ case was dismissed in favor of the defendants.[/perfectpullquote]

The reason to argue that the contract was illegal and thus void is that repayment, under the terms of the contract, would not be necessary. Leave aside the who here, the adult star and the Orange Man Bad! It really is a very simple piece of very simple law. You agree not to do this, here’s some money. The this was done, the money should be returned.


0 0 votes
Article Rating
Notify of
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Jonathan Harston
Jonathan Harston
2 years ago

If she succeeded in getting the original contract declared void, wouldn’t she have to return the money as well? The contact specified actions A and payment B. If that contract is declared void, the payment should not have been made, so reality has to be returned to the position before the voided contact was enacted.

2 years ago

If the contract’s void the the provision for repayment if in breach – or any penalties – are also void.

2 years ago

It was never about law; Mr. Avenatti wanted money, publicity, and a launch pad for his presidential aspirations; Ms. Daniels wanted money, fame and a reboot for her fading charms. The Dems wanted a stick (any stick) to beat Trump. The press saw click bait headlines and a(nother) stick to beat Trump. Truly, a match made in heaven.

Once Mr. Avenatti was busted for (allegedly) using excessive discipline on a woman friend, the air went out of the whole enterprise. What we see now is the detritus of one part of the ongoing coup to overthrow the 2016 presidential election.

Would love your thoughts, please comment.x