Skip to comments.Joe Francis LOSES ANOTHER $20 MILLION
Posted on 09/11/2012 4:23:32 PM PDT by Beaten Valve
Joe Francis has just been ordered to pay casino mogul Steve Wynn ANOTHER $20 million -- on top of the $20 million he was ordered to cough up yesterday.
The additional $20 million is for punitive damages in Steve Wynn's defamation lawsuit against the "Girls Gone Wild" honcho, in which Wynn claimed Francis made bogus claims that Wynn threatened to have him murdered over a gambling debt.
Francis was hit with $20 million in compensatory damages yesterday -- for statements made to TMZ, "Good Morning America," and more.
All told, Francis has to pay Wynn $40 million.
Wynn has promised to donate the money to charity.
Joe said he planned to contest the verdict and expects the decision to be overturned.
Paying $20 million is the least of Francis’ worries since he screwed with a guy who is connected.
>> All told, Francis has to pay Wynn $40 million.
Lends a whole new meaning to the phrase “Lighten up, Francis”.
How much is JF worth? Does insurance pay for any of this?
Anything I have read about JF is just awful, especially toward women.
I’ve given Steve Wynn some money over the years...
Hey Joe - How ya like THEM boobies?
150 mil was tossed about as of late
Joe Francis will probably file bankruptcy and hand over his disgusting media empire to Wynn. I imagine Wynn will just shut it all down.
I don’t understand how his business model works. People who are drunk cannot engage in a contract. So, even if these women signed a waiver, it should not survive a challenge. If they were inebriated, there is no contract. Someone who is creating residence of destroying contract law, is hurting all business.
That won’t be a problem.
He could start another company up at the drop of a hat.
Joe Francis is a scumbag’s scumbag.
Yes, I am troubled by what those young girls have gotten themselves into, especially under the influence of alcohol or other mood enhancers. But I was also speaking of other women he has come in contact with:
Joe Gone Wild....
Coming soon to the Bankruptcy Court near you....
If you put yourself in a drunken state voluntarily I see no problem with a contract standing. Some people can be legally drunk but straight headed and do sound work and thinking, and some people can be out of it and not legally be drunk. Prove “drunk” without blood test or breathalyzer. People can act drunk and not be drunk.
Now if someone drugs you against your will or unknowingly makes a person drunk or high and gets them to sign a contract, that contract should not stand.
By the same token, this guy is seeking out people who are drunk, very purposefully. He’s going to bars, clubs, spring breaks events, because he people are intoxicated. So, it’s not like they are coming to him. If a drunk person walked onto a car lot and sought out a car to buy, I’d see your point. If a car dealership went to a spring break night club, and started trying to get people to sign paperwork to buy a car, that’s still okay to you? A contract is a meeting of the minds. Someone seeking out people who can’t do that properly damages all contract law.
“People who are drunk cannot engage in a contract.”
I don’t condone anything that Joe Francis has done, but just to throw this out: I wonder how many drunk losing gamblers this casino owner has refused?
Notice, I did not defend Wynn. I don’t think that was an issue in this dispute. I just pointed that out. Casinos feed people drinks and then take their money. But I will point out gambling is not a contract. Still doesn’t make it right to take money from someone you are making drunk.
I get your point, but they may not be drunk. You are assuming they can’t make rational decisions. Plenty of people can have a drink or two and still make rational decisions, even if they later regret making those decisions.
Regret doesn’t mean a free pass out of a contract.
He was actually targeting hot girls that had been drinking. But just drinking alone to me doesn’t mean a contract they enter into is invalid. Because what is “drunk”is different for everyone and why are they not responsible for what they do when they voluntarily drink, they are consciously drinking. If they drive and kill someone we don’t let them go because they were drunk. Consequences. How’s one person to know when the other can’t legally enter into a contract? Two girls can drink the same but one gets drunk and the other doesn’t. Or the one acting wild only had one drink and her BAC is legal, but another quiet girl has had 4 drinks but her BAC is over the limit.
These girls made stupid choices because they chose to drink a lot. But there are consequences to being stupid. It’s one thing if someone tries to get them hammered to take advantage but if they are totally willing to drink and act stupid and someone takes advantage of them and they stupidly go along with it, I think the contract ought to stand.
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.