Okay, this is sort of a continuation of yesterday’s post, inasmuch as once again I can’t quite wrap my head around whatever legal theory the plaintiff will be relying on in this case:
Mark Meadows got a hefty payday for his book about the 2020 election, but it looks like the publisher is having buyers remorse and now wants all their money back – and then some.
The Hill is reporting that the publisher, All Seasons Press, filed a lawsuit arguing that Meadows “violated an agreement with All Seasons Press by including false statements about former President Trump’s claims surrounding the 2020 election.” They went on to say the following:
“Meadows, the former White House Chief of Staff under President Donald J. Trump, promised and represented that ‘all statements contained in the Work are true and based on reasonable research for accuracy’ and that he ‘has not made any misrepresentations to the Publisher about the Work.
Meadows breached those warranties causing ASP to suffer significant monetary and reputational damage when the media widely reported … that he warned President Trump against claiming that election fraud corrupted the electoral votes cast in the 2020 Presidential Election and that neither he nor former President Trump actually believed such claims.”
Now, it’s entirely possible that Meadows did make such a “warranty”, but won’t it be just a bit hard for All Seasons Press to prove that they relied on that warranty, inasmuch as they were surely aware that the book was full of lies, unless you chose to ignore the opinions of multiple judges that the election had not been stolen, not to mention the fact that it was widely known that the multiple lawyers that were making these claims had failed to come up with a shred of evidence to support them. In fact, wasn’t that the point of the book: to feed lies to the Trumpers they hoped would buy the book.
Methinks that All Seasons is looking to get its money back because they paid Meadows a heap of money for a book that nobody wanted to buy.
Okay, they may have a better argument than Ivanka had for getting out of her subpoena, but that’s an easy hurdle to jump.
Post a Comment