Shop at EatLovePray
Custom t-shirts, Phone Cases, Clocks, Business Cards and more!

About Us...

Exposing the lies and seeking truth doesn't = Hate. This is not a Kate Hate Site. A 'Kate Hate Site" wouldn't have "Shame on Kate AND Shame on Jon" in the reaction box.

Just a place where bloggers and commenters can share an open discussion on all things related to the Gosselins.

This blog was created to expose the spins and lies shared by the media and by several individuals who continue to spread filth and garbage for their own self-interests.

This blog will expose those who continue to spread lies as "truth" and those who base their beliefs and support for one individual based on those lies.
Pursuing Truth, Exposing Lies and Informing the Sheeple

November 18, 2009

Inconsistancies in Kate Major's contract (possibly FAKE)

Free Image Hosting at

Notice the Same "K" is written in both Jon and Kate's handwriting.

Now, look at the "a". Kate A's are inconsistent. Some of her A's looked like an inverted "e". And the rest of the A's looks like the "a" seen in Jon's handwriting.

Suspicious? Yes!

Kate is suing Jon for breach of contract? Can she read her own fake contract? It says she will not make any public statement regarding their "relationship". But she has. SO SHE ALSO is in breach on contract. If the CONTRACT is real.

Related Posts...


Anonymous said... [Reply]

Once one party is in breach, the other party to a contract has no duty to perform. If Jon broke the contract first (by not giving Kate M a job), Kate was under no duty to keep quiet or run appearances by Jon. So there is no breach on Kate's part.

jibberjabbers said... [Reply]

If they both broke the contract, then the contract is null and void. 2 wrongs don't make a right.

And what can she sue for? The fake contract doesn't state how much and how long she would be his manager.

Anonymous said... [Reply]

No, it will depend on which party was in breach first. If he breached (by not giving her the job) then she didn't have to perform. It doesn't mean that the contract is null and void. It means only that she didn't have to keep performing, and that he was liable for that breach.

For a contract, you only need to have three things: an offer, acceptance of that offer, and consideration. If those three things existed, it isn't a fake contract. Do you know anything about these things, or do you make it up as you go along? Because quite often you are flat out wrong and yet you refuse to listen to reasonable explanations about things.