Woman loses lawsuit over "Girls Gone Wild" video.

[Scented Nectar]

Signing a contract while not in the right mind voids it. Why should an implied oral contract be any different, considering the lesser nature of it compared to a full blown contract? Hint, it isn't.

Don't hint at me. I'm not on the jury. Remind Jane Doe's lawyer so he can bring that point up in court.

Since ggw does not appear to have been ordered to stop filming drunks, I have to assume they have some sort of legal way of doing so. And don't freak at me for this. I did not make these laws.

Punishing someone just because you think they are a "money chaser" when there are numerous faults and issues all over the place isn't just immoral, it is against the spirit of the Law.

She wasn't punished. She wasn't rewarded either. She must not have been able to prove that she had not consented to filming. By the way, I was not on the jury. I'm not sure if you realize that. My opinion of her as a money chaser was something the jury had no access to, even if they did give my opinion some sort of validity.

You miss the point - it is a very weak binding agreement.

I'm not missing your point. The judge and jury was missing your point. I would totally strengthen the contract requirements that ggw has to follow if I had my way.

Not found credible - sounds mighty like being not believed.

It's not the shirt pulling they didn't believe. It was whether she gave consent to film. I'm pretty sure that would have been specific to consent to show nipple. That is a credibility that would be fairly removed from whether the actual shirt pulling actually happened. Or maybe the credibility statement was in regards to any claim of hers that she suffered due to the shirt-pulled exposure but somehow not all the self-exposure she did. Who knows. I have a lot of maybes, but not many for sures.

That takes the fun out of it.

Yeah, sorry about that! I'm a bit of a killjoy sometimes.