Quote:
Originally posted by Artemisia
I'm not saying either one as a fact. I don't know what happened for sure. I'm saying that if there was a 30 day clause, it doesn't make sense for her to fire them. Why would she get angry at them for doing something they said they would do when they were being hired? And if she did fire them, then something else we don't know must have happened.
It just doesn't add up to me that there was a 30 day agreement AND she fired them.
|
She was probably just angry that they wanted to leave for Katy's tour, I mean it may have hurt her feelings.
The 30-day clause didn't guarantee they would leave, only that they had the option. Maybe she thought they wouldn't want to leave once they were on the road and actually experiencing the tour?
Obviously there was a clause because she isn't suing them for breach and I doubt they would even approach her to quit if they didn't have the ability to break the contract.
As if Katy's dancer side of the story is very reliable. 
