Does Stormy have a good case?

[EffieBlack]

87. The whole thing strikes me as odd

Or, as you so perfectly put it - "there's all kinds of goofy in this thing."

I don't think the lack of signature necessarily affects anything if there's other evidence of an agreement, which there seems to be here. But, as I said in another post, that actually puts Trump in a difficult position. Usually the lack of signature is used by the person who didn't sign it to prove they're not bound in order to get out of it. I've never seen anyone argue that the lack of signature by the OTHER party invalidates a contract.

If she claims he didn't sign the contract so it's not binding, what is HIS response? Does he claim that he IS a party to the contract? And if he does, how does he then claim that he never had a sexual relationship with her? Or does he claim he didn't have nuthin to do with nuthin and, thus, agree with her that the contract isn't binding on him?

It would be difficult for him to try to split it down the middle, claiming that he didn't sign the contract, but, he's still a party to it and oh by the way, he's going to enforce the contract against her to keep her from breaching the promises she made in a contract he wasn't party to?

Aside from that just sounding stupid, I suspect the court might find that he can't have it both ways - that it's very possible he didn't sign the contract in order to leave himself an out to later claim that he wasn't a party to it if it got out. If he could have claimed that the contract wasn't binding on him because he didn't sign it, it would be difficult for him to argue that it's binding on her, even though he didn't sign it. One way to gauge that would be for the court to review other similar agreements to see if he signed those.