Again, I’m not a lawyer, but if Emerson’s main argument was that Deck didn’t uphold his responsibility, you’d think the easiest rebuttal would be that … he did things as per the contract. Instead of arguing that Deck signed the contract without knowing what he was doing
INAL also, but my intuition runs in the opposite direction - it seems much easier to argue that the contract is invalid and you don’t even need to litigate the terms of it, than to litigate those terms. E.g. similar to how in a defamation case lawyers might argue that even if the statements were false, no harm was caused, as has been mentioned by a lawyer somewhere else on the forum.
INAL also, but my intuition runs in the opposite direction - it seems much easier to argue that the contract is invalid and you don’t even need to litigate the terms of it, than to litigate those terms. E.g. similar to how in a defamation case lawyers might argue that even if the statements were false, no harm was caused, as has been mentioned by a lawyer somewhere else on the forum.