[highball]

I would tend to agree. She appears to have been taken advantage of, signing an agreement in a foreign language that contradicted the clear verbal agreement.

She should have better representation at the time, to be sure, but the fact that the confusing written agreement was in clear conflict with the very simple verbal agreement ought to tell us something about her intentions. Letter of the law over its spirit.

I'm also not sure that the photographer's agreeing to a verbal contract that contradicts the written one isn't fraud.

[Ignatz]

She should have better representation at the time, to be sure, but the fact that the confusing written agreement was in clear conflict with the very simple verbal agreement ought to tell us something about her intentions.

• She agreed to have topless photos taken of her
• She claimed not to have seen a contract she signed
• She understood enough English to know what "take off yer shirt, baby" meant.
• She probaly had an interpreter, at least, or her agent on-site

  Sounds like she's suffering from "morning regret" to me.
  That shouldn't put her above contract law.

[SoothingDave]

She appears to have been taken advantage of, signing an agreement in a foreign language that contradicted the clear verbal agreement. She should have better representation at the time, to be sure, but the fact that the confusing written agreement was in clear conflict with the very simple verbal agreement ought to tell us something about her intentions. Letter of the law over its spirit. I'm also not sure that the photographer's agreeing to a verbal contract that contradicts the written one isn't fraud.

It's pretty well-established law that written contracts supercede and void any verbal ones. Taking the terms of an agreement someone signed over the terms claimed in a verbal agreement is a no brainer.

A verbal contract is not worth the paper it's printed on.

SD