Lawsuit: Adjourned BaldyMC v. IAmA_MoronXD

[Irongolem_lawyer]

In The Distinguished Court of The Stratham Republic
CIVIL ACTION
Date: 01/07/23

BaldyMC
Irongolem_lawyer

v.

IAmA_MoronXD

I. Description of Case
The Plaintiff brings forth the following causes of action and alleges the following against the Defendant:
IAmA_Moron signed a contract saying that the plaintiff owns 49% of everything the defendant owns.
The defendant did not give the plaintiff 49%.


II. Parties
1. BaldyMC
2. IAmA_Moron

III. Sequence of Events
1. Both the plaintiff and the defendant sign a contract giving the plaintiff 49% of all of the defendant’s properties.
2. Defendant ignores the plaintiff’s attempts at retrieving the property that is entitled to the plaintiff.

IV. Claims for Relief
1. The defendant signed a contract and failed to honor it. (Breach of Contract)

V. Damages
1. 100,000.00 (100k) kr in compensatory damages
2. 55,000.00 (55k) in nominal damages


In advancing this form to the court, you acknowledge and concur with the rules of court which highlight the importance of honesty at all times. Moreover, you understand the punishments for breaking these rules and/or committing perjury and deception in the court.

 

[TeddyTaps230]

@IAmA_MoronXD is hereby summoned to the court to acknowledge the case. If the Defendant, @IAmA_MoronXD , does not acknowledge the case as a reply in 2 days, the case will close in the Plaintiff's favor.

Court is in Session

This case is presided by Judge Teddytaps230 Bear in mind to not reply to court cases unless summoned by the Judge!

 

[ColonelKai]

In The Distinguished Court of The Stratham Republic
Response to Complaint

Good morning,

CHC Law Firm will represent IAmA_MoronXD in this case.

We would like to draw the attention of the court to the evidence provided by the plaintiff on which they have built their legal argument around.

It should be expected from any court that all evidence that has been presented alone must be self sufficient in its ability to prove its authenticity, or must be submitted alongside other evidence that proves beyond a reasonable doubt the authenticity of the evidence provided.

Considering this case regards such high sums of money that will affect the life of my client considerably, it is expected that such high levels of standard must be excesized when proposing evidence.

However, examining the cluster of images that have been submitted as evidence into the court has no way of proving that the images of the content of the book and therefore the contract itself is related to the book signed by my client. Furthermore, these images may easily be manipulated via multiple ways, not limited to post production modifications.

Therefore, we ask of the Distinguished Court and Your Honour to not accept this evidence into the court and the case until it has been submitted to a relevant body of Law Enforcement or directly to the court as a physical piece of evidence where its authenticity may be confirmed.

Thank you.

 

[TeddyTaps230]

Thé court asks for the book to be provided to presiding judge.

Please see this done immediately so that we might proceed with the case

@Irongolem_lawyer

 

[Irongolem_lawyer]

In The Distinguished Court of The Stratham Republic
Response:

The book has been mailed to the Presiding Judge by an employee of Wright & Co.

 

[TeddyTaps230]

I can confirm that I have received the book containing the information provided in the screenshots provided in evidence by the plaintiff.

I speak now to the defendant @ColonelKai when I state the following:

The book I have in my possession, contains all information provided in the screenshots provided by the plaintiff, and is clearly stated to be named uwu, owned by IAmA_MoronXD. This book is the original copy.

I request the defence now continues to do one of two things:

A. Motion to dismiss this case providing me with good, honest and relevant reasoning.

B. Continue with this case by stating your intent to do such, and arguing your side of the story using fact and truth only.

Have a nice day!

 

[ColonelKai]

In The Distinguished Court of The Stratham Republic
Response

Good evening,

We will continue with this case.

We would like to draw the attention of your honour and the distinguished court to the "Contract Legality Act" passed by the parliament. The Act states the following:

* contracts may not include unreasonably harsh punishments, a contract could be deemed too harsh by the judicial system

We would like to see this contract be deemed "unreasonably harsh", as a punishment of taking away 49%, almost half, of all posessions of a citizen in exchange for a consented PvP which isn't even inherently beneficial to the plaintiff nor defendant clearly is an unreasonable expectation of a return.

Thank you.

 

[TeddyTaps230]

Thank you for responding in a timely manner.

I now request the plaintiff @Irongolem_lawyer responds to the request for this claim to be deemed unreasonably harsh due to the nature of the punishment.

You have 48 hours

 

[Irongolem_lawyer]

In The Distinguished Court of The Stratham Republic
Response:

Good evening,

“The contract Legality Act” states:

* contracts may not include unreasonably harsh punishments, a contract could be deemed too harsh by the judicial system

The contract states:

Must concent to murdering each other.

Nekoo owns 49% of everything Lorenzo owns

These are 2 different clauses in the contract. The latter is not a punishment but a commitment the defendant willingly agreed to. Once again the “Contract Legality Act” states unreasonably harsh punishments not clauses or commitments.

 

[TeddyTaps230]

I hereby reject the claim made in regard to the punishment being too harsh.

@ColonelKai I now call on the defence to make any further points or arguments before I move to a Judgment.

Many thanks

 

[ColonelKai]

In The Distinguished Court of The Stratham Republic
Response

Good Afternoon,

With the permission of the Judge, we would like to continue arguing the fact that the clause is indeed a punishment. Please keep in mind that Startham's judicial system follows Common Law Doctrine, and therefore, I will be using Common Law doctrines to back up my argument.

In contract law, a very important matter that should always be considered is context. Considering the contract does not have integration/merger clause, the four corners doctrine can be violated, and therefore, outside context can be used in inspecting and interpreting the meaning of a contract.

In this case, two things are very important to consider; the context between my client and the plaintiff surrounding this contract, as well as the intention of the Contract Legality Act and its relationship with Common Law.

1. Context
So far, we have been taking this contract at its face value without considering its place its a series of events and putting the contract in its proper context. My client and the Plaintiff have been in a long friendship of approximately 4 years, and they have been known to share a lot of their assets together. As can be seen from the extremely casual wording of the contract, this is something two friends signed as part of their friendship. This means, the nature of this contract relies heavily on the context, and deciding on this case without considering this would be a betrayal of its nature.

We would like your honour to take into consideration this fact that these are two friends with a casual relationship, and considering the casual wording of the contract, this contract was likely signed without much thought and in the context of a casual situation, which brings us to the next topic.

2. Contract Legality Act
Now we must also look at the Contract Legality Act in a more in-depth way. This act is very notable in the fact that it is the first act that codifies contract. Apart from the Foundation of Contract Law Act, it is the main guiding principle when it comes to all matters relating to contract law. This is the first law where the rights of our citizens have been secured.

Now, I'd like to draw the attention of the court to the fact that, out of the mere 4 clauses, one is entirely dedicated to the following;

* contracts may not include unreasonably harsh punishments, a contract could be deemed too harsh by the judicial system

Now, there are two arguments I'd like to make regarding in this particular case, the definition of "punishment" should be broadened and also apply here.



1. While being the first ever act regarding contracts, it takes 25%, a whole quarter, of its clauses to establish a system to protect the citizens from fradulent legal agreements. If we take the word "punishment" at a face value, that would likely mean the consequence of an wrongful termination of the contract. It would not only make very little sense, but also would be very misleading to believe that for something that took so much of percentage of the attention of a founding document, only a very specific situation such as a wrongful termination would be covered. We believe that this clause should be interpreted with a broader term as it was likely meant to be, to protect our citizens from a fraudulent claim.

2. To further support our point made in the first paragraph, I'd like to again draw the attention of the court to the second half of the same clause; "a contract could be deemed too harsh by the judicial system". Here, it clearly states that a whole of the contract could be deemed too harsh. If this is not the almost definite proof that the word "punishment" in the first half means not only wrongful terminations but also clauses and committments, we don't know what is.

Also, we would like to ask a further question to the plaintiff - if you think a "punishment" in a contract is not "committment or clause", what is a punishment? Is it edible? Is it a wrongful termination clause? Because those are clauses too. Is it criminal law? Because those can't be specified in a contract.

Thank you.

 

[Irongolem_lawyer]

In The Distinguished Court of The Stratham Republic
Response:

1. Context
The Plaintiff and the defendant were not friends; they were acquaintances and business partners. All assets shared were business related. The court should not see this as a 'casual contract' but a contract signed by 2 former business partners.

2. Contract legality act
The Plaintiff understands that the definition of punishment is the common law one

Some pain or penalty warranted by law, inflicted on a person for the omission of the performance of an act required by law.

Punishments are fines, jail time (in criminal law), judgments (in civil law), or penalty clauses (in civil/contract law). A clause is a provision in a legal agreement that relates to an important point of understanding between the parties engaged in the contract. A penalty clause is a clause within a contract that seeks to make the counterparty responsible for paying a large sum of money if they breach the contract. A commitment is a promise to do something or act in a particular way. A commitment can refer to a contract or an obligation to undertake something, often regarding financial or moral responsibility, like financial commitments (the amount a person should pay regularly)
(Sources: upcounsel.com , law.cornell.edu)

1. The law does state a contract may be deemed too harsh, the plaintiff has 1 argument:
a. The law states:

contracts may not include unreasonably harsh punishments, a contract could be deemed too harsh by the judicial system

This means if the punishment (in this case, penalty clauses) are unreasonable, the whole contract, penalty clauses, and clauses are deemed too harsh. However, this case is not about penalty clauses, it is about a clause that states:

Nekkoo owns 49% of everything I own.

The contract that both Baldy and Iama_Moronxd signed has no penalty clauses. Therefore, the contract does not have any punishment to be deemed too harsh.

 

[TeddyTaps230]

Okay, I request a final argument statement from @ColonelKai. Once this is submitted we shall move to closing statements and then a judgment.

 

[ColonelKai]

In The Distinguished Court of The Stratham Republic
Response:

Good afternoon, and thank you for the chance to make a last statement, becacuse we really believe the information in this response will be cruical to the outcome of this case.

1. RE, Context
The plaintiff makes a bold statement saying that there is no friendly relations between my client and the plaintiff. This is demonstrably false. I would like to bring the attention of the court to the following image;

We do not think there needs to be said more, as the image is self evident.

2. RE, Contract Legality Act
The plaintiff makes 2 points regarding the Contract Legality Act in their response, one being a definition of the word "punishment" in a legal context and the other being the fact that the first and second part of the debated clause, separated by a comma, are the same sentence and therefore interlinked.

I would like to draw the attention of the court to the fact that neither one of these addresses the core argument made by the defense team and instead lingers on either undisputed or again, false information trying to take shots at things that ultimately do not matter to the main argument.


Punishment Definition: The definition of the punishment made by the plaintiff in the last response is not far from the definition we already accepted in our argument. We are not arguing the definition of the word "punishment" at its face value, we already admitted. Actually, the more narrow definition proposed by the plaintiff further proves our point of the word "punishment" not being used in the traditional sense in the Contract Legality Act. Furthermore, the sources on which the plaintiff relies on for this definition are shaky at best. Out of the two sources given (without even links to the specific source, even), one is a credible law institute while the other is a "is an online marketplace for legal services created to enable users, primarily entrepreneurs and businesses, to find and hire attorneys." (click here for source). The other, namely the Cornell Law School's Legal Information Institute does not define punishment, instead, it defines "penalty". What's astounding is that it defines "penalty" as exactly what the plaintiff claims "punishment" to be, and it also defines penalty as a kind of punishment, which means that punishment has a wider definition than what the plaintiff claims it to be, according to their own source. Since plaintiff hasn't linked it, click here for source.

Sentence Structure: The plaintiff makes the argument that "This means if the punishment (in this case, penalty clauses) are unreasonable, the whole contract, penalty clauses, and clauses are deemed too harsh." Not only is this relying on the fact that punishment equals to penalty causes only, which is what we have been debating against, without the plaintiff actually trying to argue against our points, this makes no difference to the whole debate. We didn't claim the first and latter half of the sentence are independent clauses, but rather claimed that the second half of the sentence further establishes our argument.

Thank you.

 

[TeddyTaps230]

I now request closing statements from both @Irongolem_lawyer and @ColonelKai

 

[Irongolem_lawyer]

In The Distinguished Court of The Stratham Republic
Closing statement:

This case is a simple one, one that the defense has tried to complicate. A punishment in contract law is just that, a punishment, not a clause or a commitment. The whole argument the defense has constructed is shaky at best, they try to use common law as a part of the argument, but also completely ignore the common law definition of punishment; one cannot pick and choose which parts of the law to use and which part of the law to disregard completely.

The defense signed a contract and decided not to honor it if The Distinguished Court rules with the defense, it will set a dangerous precedent that anyone that regrets signing contracts, can back out with no consequences. The defense also uses the Contract Legality Act while also in direct contradiction with the whole meaning and reason of the Contract Legality Act.

 

[ColonelKai]

In The Distinguished Court of The Stratham Republic
Closing Statement:

The Defense apologises for the relatively late response, I've been sick and therefore not able to properly respond.

We have nothing more to add to the argument other than to draw the attention of the Distinguished Court to the facts that the plaintiff has provided false information, avoided disputing points made by the defense and made statements in their closing statement despite being disputed on those facts while not providing a counter-argument.

They make claims, we dispute them with arguments, and they continue making claims without addressing the arguments made by the defense. We would like to court to take into consideration these facts when making a decision, and perhaps even take action as/if seen neccesary.

Any case should be determined by facts and reasonable interpretation of law.

I would like to also thank the court for this priviledge, as this is my first case, I would like to apologise if I have made any mistakes. I would also like to thank the plaintiff and their legal team for keeping this civil, even though I did critisize the arguments made by the team.

 

[TeddyTaps230]

I thank both sides for their statements.

I will now take some time to go through everything once more and form a judgment.

 

[TeddyTaps230]

Okay, I believe I am ready to make a Judgment on this case.

Summary:

To summarize this case actually seems slightly unrational as I have possibly seen some of the best defense arguments I have seen in my entire time in the legal profession here.

So let's get down to business... BaldyMC is suing IAmA_MoronXD for a violation of a contract. They are requesting 155,000kr in damages for the breaking of this contract.

During the process of this case, at no point as the plaintiff given evidence to show the court that the amount requested is actually reasonable to request. This can usually be proven by providing something such as proof of loss of earnings due to the contract not being honored, or a statement that proves that 49% of the defendants belongings add up to at least some of the requested damages.

Onto the defense. There have been many brilliant argument points from the defense, and as I said to begin with, possibly some of the best I have ever witnessed.

During my time in the legal profession, I can say that I seen many contracts be formed, generally they look something like this:

"Upon signing this contract, Player A is expected to work xx hours doing these specific tasks. In return Player B will pay Player A xx Krunas per minute. If Player A fails to meet the expectations of this contract, they will be subjected to punishments as set out below:

1. Docked pay for the time they did not work
2. Receive a penalty point for failing to meet expectations.
3. Potential dismissal if 3 or more penalty points have been reached

Please sign below...
Player A"

In this case, BaldyMC has signed a contract that states he shall consent everytime he is murdered by IAmA_MoronXD (the underlined name is assumed to be in this position by the court as the contract is formed between the two players named.). In return for this, BaldyMC will own 49% of Everything IAmA_MoronXD owns. There are no punishments laid out by either side in the event of the contract being broken.


Judgment:

Upon reviewing for perhaps the third time, everything that has been argued by both sides, I believe there is only one ruling that I can give. This is based on the fact that a contract was formed, and although it has been argued it is unfair to award damages in this case, The defendant made a contract stating that he BALDYMC would own 49% of everything that the defendant owned.

It is therefore the decision of the court that IAmA_MoronXD is to give 49% of everything he owns to BaldyMC as per the contract that was written and agreed between them.

I thank both parties for their time and arguments in this case. and I most definitely look forward to seeing the next time you are both in the court room. It has been a pleasure!

I request that the DoJ Minister @Ryan_88 sees this request followed through.

The court is now adjourned

Court Adjourned

This case was presided by Judge TeddyTaps230