A contract is a binding agreement between two, or more, parties which binds all the parties to the agreement with following certain terms or conditions. An NDA is a contract that, usually, restricts what one of the parties can say or do after the contract is signed. An NDA almost always concludes with one party receiving a payment for which they agree to never reveal what the issue in the contract actually says. Many term such contracts to be “pay offs” for someone’s silence.

But, an NDA is a binding agreement for which one party probably received a lot of money. And, because it is a valid contract, it is supposed to be enforced for the duration of the terms of the contract which frequently means “forever”.

Colin Kapernick reportedly received a huge sum because it was cheaper to pay him off than go through the court process. I disagreed with any payoff to him because it certainly seemed as if he didn’t honor the terms of his NFL contract. But, Kapernick got the PC crowd behind him, and was paid to end any further litigation.

Now, Gretchen Carlson believes that she should be free to speak about her allegations of sexual harassment and that ALL who accused their boss of such harassment should be free to speak publicly about the alleged harassment. Wouldn’t Monica Lewinsky have loved to receive something monetary for her proven allegations against then President Clinton? How the times change!

The problem is that Gretchen, and the others, agreed to be NOT sue for harassment in return for a sum of money. There was a valid contract. She received an agreed upon amount of money. That was the contract which she signed.

Now, Gretchen is not offering to return the money she was paid, nor to pay the interest that money would have accrued to whoever paid it. No. She wants her cake (the money) and she wants to eat that cake, too. The question is why should she be able to negate the terms of her contract and also keep the money she was paid?

If she didn’t like the contract, she was free at that time to reject it and speak her mind. But, no. She waited until now to publicly criticize the very contract that she agreed to.

Boy. Silence was Golden for her back then. Now, she wants to keep the “gold” and speak out.

Whether her allegations were honest or not is a moot point. The fact is that she willingly signed a contract and took money for signing that contract. No one should be allowed to back out of a contract just because they want to.

Silence is Golden because…..well…..silence is part of the deal. So, Gretchen, my dear. Time for you to act like a mature adult and realize that your deal — you know, the one you signed and took money for — is binding. And just because you don’t like it now does not give you the right to challenge its authority.

Unless……………….you repay the money, with interest………..AND, have the agreement of the other parties to the contract sign off on your new “deal”.

Otherwise, be quiet. A deal is a deal. Silence is Golden for a reason.