so the llc has standing to litigate and seek relief if it believes the agreement is being violated even though it isn't a party with claims in the agreement?https://twitter.com/rickhasen/status/971617623254302720 …
The agreement is between EC, LLC “and/or”DD on one side and PP on the other. It’s odd
-
-
PP??? As in Pee-Pee??
-
I think choosing PP is an allusion to Plaintiff and DD to Defendant so Cohen could base this more easily on his standard NDA agreement language.
- End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
But DD never signed, and his attorney signed for EC LLC, not for DD. So that "and/or" becomes "or" and DD is not a party to the agreement. Which means PP never got her litigation release, which the contract promises, which might mean the contract fails. Interesting...
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Ummm...so therefore not a binding agreement, right?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Would it be weird if the Peepee tapes the Russians supposedly had were really the PP tapes?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Paternity? :/
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.