Is Ridge going to "make her his wife?" LOL

matisse, 11/29/2022, 9:50AM(516 days ago) @Soapisfun- one person liked this

Technically, Taylor didn’t lie. Ridge told her he wanted to be with her and it didn’t have anything to do with Brooke. She just didn’t feel like ruining their wedding

She was going to lie. She had told him the night before she would always be honest with him and he could trust her 100%. Well, in letting him marry her without full disclosure of what she had just been told, she was lying by omission. And it shows him, he cannot trust her.

Ridge lied to her too, but at least his lie was predicated by his hurt at what he perceived Brooke did, which was ruin their marriage by lying to his face. Ridge probably meant every word he said to Taylor up on that mountain, but, it was not real. None of it, because a lie and a crime had been committed to make it happen. So, anything he said, any epiphany he had, was predicated by the lie and the crime. In legal terms this falls under the Clawback Rule. Ex: the Nazi's steal a Monet from someone, the war ends, the painting disappears. It resurfaces 50 years later with a letter stating the painting was sold to the person that took it, probably even signed by the owner under duress. It is sold to some buyer, through a reputable dealer like Sotheby's. The painting is then put out on loan to the Met in NYC. An old lady goes to the Met, sees the painting and remembers it was in the dining room at her Uncle's house in Berlin. The last the uncle was seen his home was being ransacked by Nazi's and he was being marched off to the trains. She has an old photo of a family gathering, and it shows the painting. The family sues for the painting using the Clawback Rule, and they in all probability get the painting returned to the family. The owner would then sue Sotheby's, who probably did a proper vetting of the painting with the knowledge they had of it, and Sotheby's would have to reimburse the person they sold it to, then Sotheby's would be out the money they made from the commission and the person that tried to sell the stolen painting would be out all of their money because they acquired it from a relative that committed a crime to get it.

In this scenario, Taylor is the relative that acquired the painting through a crime committed by her son. The Clawback Rule would apply. LOL

---

chat Reply

Like

reply Share

Share Tweet email Email

bookmark Save

---