Head of Press sues Ninel Conde

Which was the chief press sued Ninel Conde the singer for breach of contract and owed more than 400 thousand dollars after having gotten to the artist who modeled for magazines shoes, however, has refused Conde extinguish since 2006, 20% of the fee for this advertising, such as agreed by both parties.

In an interview with the applicant's lawyer, Mr. Alejandro Gutierrez said:

"The trial was conducted in the court of civil nineteenth in the City for breach of contract and its origins because my client told Ms. Herrera Ninel Conde, Ninel Conde better known as who had the possibility of ads in their shoes we'd be in magazines and scenic and I would charge 20 percent of what they charge if for the business.

"The advertising was done and paid my client the money agreed upon, but the problem arose when the contract was renewed because they had agreed that percentage as payment, but not limited to the first contract, but all because she had gotten that customer but no longer wanted to pay.”

- From when he no longer wanted to pay his client Ninel Conde?

"Approximately in 2005 and the renewal of the contract was in 2006, but Mrs. Ninel Conde has continued to renew their contracts and do not think that 2 million pesos was the amount agreed in the renewal, but the best for 20 % more each year. "

- How much is owed to the plaintiff?

"My client will be 400 000 dollars plus 16% VAT and withholdings. In turn, when he ordered Mrs. Ninel Conde, is presented with an incident in which legal interest is calculated to have been, from the failure to date to give effect to the sentence. "

- What is appropriate in this case?

"Right now we are in the presentation of evidence and we have a
hearing on December 7 which will receive the confession of Mrs. Ninel Conde. She had to appear at the hearing but did not last nor in previous ones, but it has been mentioned again. I am very interested that my client Mrs. pays what you owe. "

- If you do not pay what happens?

"A jail is not going. Here is what you should not pay if we are able to seize assets, and if necessary top up these goods for us to collect the amount at which the judge says my client is entitled. "

- Do you want to add something?

"Just to see justice done," concluded the lawyer