Viewing Single Post From: Nick's true motives revealed
Feb 27 2013, 12:21 PM
- Elite Member
- December 20, 2007
Yes, blackmail is coercsion. But there is a bit of a fine line when you are talking about a criminal act as opposed to something that is simply embarassing. And sure, Will could claim that Nick's claims are untrue, but given the tape that Nick has and the number of people that know, it's not that easy. And my point is that the papers are legally binding unless Will steps up and says he was blackmailed.
- Feb 27 2013, 12:03 PM
- Feb 27 2013, 11:39 AM
- Feb 27 2013, 11:36 AM
- Feb 27 2013, 10:06 AM
Will could sign away his rights but it will not matter because a person has so many months(I thinking three months) after the baby is baby to change their mind.Like when a baby is put up for adoption by its parents after the baby is born even if the baby is adopt,the bio parents have a few months to change their minds.
Will signing away his rights means nothing mainly because he has proof that he was blackmailed into doing it. No agreement signed under coercion is legally binding.
That might be true (although the popular perception of coercion and the legal definition aren't always the same) but the only way to prove he was coerced is to reveal that he shot EJ and Nick blackmailed him. That's not exactly a good scenario.
Actually, according to contract law blackmail is coercion. Sonny's presence is proof. As far as Will having to reveal what he did that is not necessarily true. Legally admitting what he was blackmailed with is not an admission of guilt. He could claim the recording is a fake, but he feared it would be believed. With everyone else involved willing to and having already kept silence to protect Will that would not be a hard sell. In any case, my point was that the papers are not legally binding in the first place because of the circumstances under which they were signed. I doubt this will even be the way they choose to reverse Will's signing of the papers so it really doesn't matter.