6 ms·
This whole thing is just... bizarre. With Facebook now taking the "we don't know if he signed it, but if he did it's invalid anyway!" argument it looks like Zu
by ajg1977 16y ago
This whole thing is just... bizarre.
With Facebook now taking the "we don't know if he signed it, but if he did it's invalid anyway!" argument it looks like Zuckerberg may indeed have put pen to this paper.
My guess would be either he assumed it was contracting boilerplate and didn't read it properly (based on the memories of my behavior in my early 20's, fairly likely), or just skipped over the single paragraph with criminally bad English that referred to the purchase and design of "The Face Book".
This will be interesting.
- btilly 16y agoIt is a lawyer's job to put forth every argument that can make their client win. Even if the lawyer believes that the client didn't sign, they can't stand on the truth because the judge may not believe them. So they have to argue both sides of every disputed fact. So they say that they don't think our client signed. But even if he did, it is too late to bring this case so our client still wins. That way no matter which version of the facts the judge accepts, they can win.
- hristov 16y agoI don't agree with that. If the lawyer knows for certain that Zuck did not sign they should just say he did not sign. That will not prevent them from making arguments in the alternative, such as "even if he signed, the contract is invalid on other grounds." While these kind of arguments may seem a little disingenuous to the ordinary person, they are accepted and made in the courthouses all the time. I think the best argument you can make for the possibility that Zuck did not sign this contract is that he did not sign it, but does not want to be brought to the witness stand for some reason, so he has told his lawyer not to make the validity of his signature an issue of contention but to try to attack the contract on other grounds.
- btilly 16y agoI don't agree with that. If the lawyer knows for certain that Zuck did not sign they should just say he did not sign. That will not prevent them from making arguments in the alternative, such as "even if he signed, the contract is invalid on other grounds." While these kind of arguments may seem a little disingenuous to the ordinary person, they are accepted and made in the courthouses all the time. I'm having trouble seeing what your point of disagreement is. From what we both said, if the lawyer believes or knows that the client did not sign, the lawyer should make that argument. But the lawyer will also make arguments in the alternative, arguing that even if the client did sign, they should still win the case. That looks like agreement, not disagreement.
- joe_the_user 16y agoI'm not a lawyer but from the last time I had to deal with contracts, I recall that contracts with irregular or completely unjustified terms actually can be thrown out by the courts.
- eru 16y agoHappens regularly in Germany for tenancy agreements, even for quite reasonable stipulations.
- joe_the_user 16y agoAs I remember, US residential agreements are quite restricted because the average renter isn't expected to have any legal sophistication. Commercial lease are much less restricted because a commercial leaser is expected to more sophistication. In any case, Rumpelstiltskin's contract probably wouldn't be honored in a court of law.
- gte910h 16y agoUnconscionably is still ground for invalidation here too.
- enjo 16y agoThis is why almost any contract you sign will have a clause stating that if one section of the contract is found to be invalid, that it does not invalidate the whole contract.
- dpifke 16y agoThey can put forth any argument they want to the press, but they can't make an argument to the court that they know is frivolous or not true. It's Rule 11(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/Rule11.htm http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/Rule11.htm
- btilly 16y agoThat doesn't contradict the example that I provided.
- joe_the_user 16y agoThe scanned document I've seen does have a signature on it and Zuckerberg's history with Ceglia should give some picture of whether that signature is authentic. The signed contract seems to be the main evidence Ceglia is counting on - earlier in the case he said allusion to surprising people when the evidence comes. So it seems plausible the signature is valid though this naturally doesn't mean Ceglia's suit will succeed.