That clause was clearly for things outside of Elon (or former Twitter)'s control. Like if a government stepped in to stop the purchase.

Elon never had a good counter argument. So it was simply a case of those who were able to read the public court documents vs the ones who believed Elons out-of-court media blitz.

Alas, the only arguments that matter in court are the arguments that are filled in court. None of the discussion points you talked about even made it to the case, they were laughed out long before Elon gave up and bought Twitter.

------

Reading. It's a superpower. That's what the past year has taught me. A surpring number of people cannot read and will believe falsehoods even if they contradict written and agreed upon documents.

He couldn't have. That clause protected Twitter, not him. It ensured Twitter would still get something in case outside forces, like government regulators or financing falling through, prevented the deal. It did not give Musk the right to pay a penalty and back out.

Twitter explicitly reserved the right to sue for specific performance, i.e. to force the deal through rather than merely getting damages. Musk explicitly signed away any rights to investigate or back out. Twitter was honest and forthright so any fraud claims were nonsense. Musk didn't have a leg to stand on, legally or factually.

The most he could have done was tie things up in court. But the courts can throw out bad-faith lawsuits pretty quickly.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/11/business/dealbook/elon-mu...

The other guy you're talking to is being a dick. There was a concerted disinformation campaign from Musk and friends, and the papers were not willing enough to call "bullshit" on the front page. The truth was out there but hardly staring you in the face.

But hedge funds have teams of lawyers reading this stuff all day long. They have no excuse for not seeing through Musk's chicanery.