She's gonna need a good lawyer to prove she's not a girl gone wild. How about Eliot Spitzer? I hear he's looking for a job...
Posted on 04/28/2008 5:39:51 PM PDT by melt
MIAMI (AP) — The call girl linked to former New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer is suing the founder of the "Girls Gone Wild" video series for more than $10 million.
Ashley Alexandra Dupre filed a lawsuit Monday in Miami federal court claiming she never gave "Girls Gone Wild" founder Joe Francis permission to use her name and likeness to advertise the videos.
Dupre contends she was 17 and not old enough to sign a contract when the videos were taken in 2003 in Miami Beach.
(Excerpt) Read more at ap.google.com ...
She's gonna need a good lawyer to prove she's not a girl gone wild. How about Eliot Spitzer? I hear he's looking for a job...
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
“Dupre contends she was 17 and not old enough to sign a contract when the videos were taken in 2003 in Miami Beach.”
It should be easy to prove one way or the other. I am guessing the ‘Girls Gone Wild’ people have some release form with a date.
LOL! Oh pleeease
Actually they discovered she was 17 shortly after they discovered they already had video of her.
Joe Francis has a history of taping underage girls.
She could have made more by releasing her own series of “Governor’s Gone Wild”.
I’m guessing she signed a wide open contract that allows GGW to use any tape with any name at any time. GGW is working with vidiots, you know.
I bet a lot of those ‘Girls Gone Wild’ girls end up on stripper poles or selling themselves.
They learn young on how to manipulate both men and the law...
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
She may have been underage at the outset but if her behavior continued past the time she reached age of majority, it’s implied consent and a waiver of her minority rights, would be my non-legal opinion. Should be, anyway.
And Spitzer......... Chain him to Helen Thomas.
New York needs to remember what Democrats did with their tax dollars.
Let’s assume she was 17. Could they assert a defense that she signed fraudulently?
“Joe Francis has a history of taping underage girls” who say they’re of age and produce fake ids.
Something tells me the agreement they sign is binding in that all images of her and videos taken are property of GGW and can be used anyway they want.
Does anyone know if she provided a fake id to prove her age, and she ended up being 17, is that contract agreement voided and she could legally have a case against them?
Sounds like she’s trying to void the agreement using the same defense as the woman did in the movie, “Liar, Liar”, where in divorce court, they were able to void a prenumptual agreement because she lied about how old she was when she got married.
I don’t know.
I wouldn’t count on it. Joe Francis is a scumbag of the lowest order. I don’t think ethics is a job requirement with his company.
If you’ve never been manipulated by a woman you’ve either never been around women or you’ve never been around women.
Either way, if you’ve ever been around women, you’ve been manipulated.
Just because you don’t realize it (and the rest of us do!) only shows how well you’ve been manipulated!
His “product” is repellent, but I’ve heard Joe Francis interviewed on radio in the past and he is a darned smart businessman who’s been sued a zillion times and always seems to prevail.
It is amazing what women will do VOLUNTARILY and for free in front of cameras.
But that isn’t unethical or scummy is it?
Either way, if you’ve ever been around women, you’ve been manipulated.
Whatever ... I'm easy, as long as sex is involved I can be manipulated. ;)
In this case “GGW” could face thousands of lawsuits.So far this is the only one(as far as I know).
I’m sure the lawyer and her aren’t expecting to win, they are gunning for a settlement of a portion of that.
I don’t think her case has much merit. She’s just been a hooker for too long and expects to get paid for everything she does at her current “rate”.
I was talking more about his business practices (which make AOL look like a bunch of saints) than the content of his vids, although I’ve heard he’s had past problems with underage girls appearing in them.
Can they sue each other for being jackholes and bankrupt each other?
Makes one wonder, which side of the suit is of actual ill repute.
If she’s underage, why is she partying in a saloon?
Boy, this chick is really cleaning up.
This is just a prelude to publishing (notice I didn’t say ‘writing’) a best-selling book claiming that GGW drove her over the edge and into prostitution. [maybe it did but she ought to take responsbility for her own choices] Her marketability will be increased by any connections she can make with the media and in the public mind with prominent and/or notorious people.
>>>>Let’s assume she was 17. Could they assert a defense that she signed fraudulently?
If she fake produced ID, then she can not profit from her own illegal act.
If she was in a public place and not nude, then she also does not have a case, since by her own posing, she made herself noticeable.
I was also wondering about statute of limitations issues.
I found this related to enforceability, not exactly on point:
“Under the majority view, infants who willfully misrepresent their ages may nevertheless exercise their powers of avoidance. However, it has often been held that in equity the rule is different and infants who disaffirm under these circumstances must restore the other party to the status quo ante. [so maybe she’d have to pay back any money received, if at all.]
Despite the general recognition of the rule that a misrepresentation of age does not inhibit the infant’s power of avoidance, there is a marked split of authority as to whether an infant is liable in tort for the deceit of willful misrepresentation of age. The division stems from the rule that a tort action will not lie against an infant if in essence it involves the enforcement of a contract. Some courts assert that ultimately the fraud action is based on the contract. Others take the position that the tort is sufficiently independent of the contract and that the granting of tort relief does not involve indirect enforcement of the contract. A case can be made for either point of view. The basic dispute is to what extent the law’s policy of protecting infants should apply to a fraudulent infant. The same kind of split of authority exists as to other kinds of fraudulent statements made by infants in connection with their contracts.
It is recognized that the infant’s fraudulent misrepresentation of age or other material facts will permit the other party to avoid the contract on grounds of fraud.”
7-27 Corbin on Contracts § 27.7
Thus, it seems it depends on where she’s suing.
“In Texas, a contract between an adult and a minor is voidable at the option of the minor. A minor who fraudulently misrepresents her age to induce another to enter into a contract cannot void the contract. Therefore, a party seeking to prevent another party from voiding a contract on the basis of minority must establish that (1) the minor misrepresented her age, (2) the minor intended for the other party to rely on the misrepresentation, and (3) the party was injured as a result of its actual and justifiable reliance. A party to an arm’s length transaction must exercise ordinary care and reasonable diligence for the protection of his own interests, and a failure to do so is not excused by mere confidence in the honesty and integrity of the other party.”
Topheavy Studios, Inc. v. Doe, 2005 Tex. App. LEXIS 6462 (Tex. App. 2005)
The Topheavy case is pretty close to the facts on hand,
“The individual, while a minor, lied about her age in order to be a contestant for a game. The individual exposed herself while onstage and ultimately a video game was created that contained multiple images of her exposures. The individual brought this action for various torts and the trial court issued a temporary injunction. The court affirmed. Because the court was unable to determine whether the individual was entitled to void a release based on her minority, the trial court did not err in finding that the individual might have been entitled to relief for invasion of privacy by misappropriation. The trial court’s finding that a temporary injunction was necessary to prevent additional irreparable injury to the individual was not an abuse of discretion. The trial court did not err in finding that the issuance of a temporary injunction would not have offended the First Amendment. The temporary injunction did not appear to exceed the territorial jurisdiction of Texas, and the trial court’s granting of the individual’s motion to proceed under a pseudonym was an interlocutory order that was not appealable pursuant to Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 51.014 (Supp. 2004-05).”
1. Infants—May Not Avoid Contract where Other Party Misled as to Age.—A fraudulent misrepresentation or concealment as to age, which has misled the other party, will thereafter estop an infant from avoiding a contract.
2. Infants—Conduct Amounting to Misrepresentation of age Estopped Infant from Avoiding Contract.—Where activity of infant in negotiating contract and accepting benefits of it, with his appearance and surroundings, induced the other party to believe he was 21 years of age and to enter into a contract with him, the infant is estopped from avoiding the contract, though he made no specific statement to the effect that he was 21 years of age.
3. Infants—Burden on Person Contracting with Infant to Show Fraudulent Concealment of Age.—In an action by infants to avoid and rescind a contract, the burden was on defendants to show a fraudulent concealment as to age inducing them to make the contract.
Young v. Daniel, 201 Ky. 65 (Ky. 1923)
an infant who enters into a contract is, as a general rule, entitled to void that contract upon reaching majority, regardless of any misrepresentations of age made by the infant. See 1 Restatement (Second), Contracts (1981) § 14, comment c, p. 40; S. Williston, Contracts (3d Ed. 1959) § 245, p. 63.
Barco Auto Leasing Corp. v. House, 202 Conn. 106, 118 n8 (Conn. 1987)
I didn’t find anything in FL
What disturbs me about the cases I came across was that courts were willing to let people who lied about their age out of contracts and absolve responsibility for payments for things like cars, but courts would require insurance companies (or employers) to pay people who lied about their age on applications. Pretty amazing.
Once they know she was under 18, they would be liable for distributing her photos after that point without her new consent.
Well researched.
Even if she can establish liability, she has another huge problem.
She is an admitted $500 whore trying to make a case in Dade County that she deserves $10,000,000 because she voluntarily showed someone her boobs.
I think I’ll argue the defense case, if I may, Your Honor.
(Don’t you just love Equity!)
I wonder if you-know-who represents her.
Is you-know-who still admitted in FL?
I just want to see her claim that GGW has harmed her otherwise sterling reputation
lol. I’d like to pull the filing to see who the attorneys are.
His business depends on him signing contracts with people who are intoxicated. As far as I know, you need to be sober to sign a valid contract.
What do you mean free, dude?
They get, like, a "Girls Gone Wild" t-shirt, like, and stuff.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not complaining, I’m bragging!!!
Or a string of plastic beads.
Or just for the asking!
“BS! No man is forced to date a woman - or go out with an escort girl.”
She willfully agreed to pose nude, and now she wants money because she was ‘underage’.
Sounds like manipulation to me!
Lock her up and throw away the key.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.