Lawsuit: Adjourned Mealster v. Lootlover43

[Ryan_88]

In The Distinguished Court of The Stratham Republic
CIVIL ACTION
Date: 04/06/23

Eyfan4eva
HunterHo LLP (Ryan_88 Representing)

v.

Lootlover43

I. Description of Case
The Plaintiff brings forth the following causes of action and alleges the following against the Defendant:
(Give a brief description of the situation and why you are here in court)

Lootlover43 has defamed Mealster by claiming that the company has a "badly made discord server". He has described the food as "mid af" and the food as "awful". No evidence was provided to back any of these claims and it was sent through the ad channel which stands out compared to normal chats allowing every player online at the time to see it.

II. Parties
1. Mealster
2. Eyfan4eva (Owner of Mealster)
3. Lootlover43

III. Sequence of Events
1. Lootlover43 sends an advertisement slandering Mealster.
2. Lootlover43 then responds to questions of why he would send an advertisement like that with "its a honest review".

IV. Claims for Relief
1. The Corporate Slander Act defines corporate slander as "the Intentional spreading of misleading information regarding a company", "Defaming a company with malicious intent". Lootlover43 intentionally posted an advertisement to spread his opinion of Mealster in an attempt to draw business away.

V. Damages
1. We request 2000kr from Lootlover43 for slandering the company.
2. 500kr in legal fees.

Bill: Accepted - Corporate Slander Act (CSA)

Corporate Slander Act A Bill To To Define Corporate Slander The Parliament of Stratham enacts: Section 1. Short Title (1) This Act is the Corporate Slander Act (CSA) Section 2. Commencement (1) Provision(s) shall come into effect upon passage Section 3. Reasoning (1) As Cooleagles said"...

mcbusinesscraft.com

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.

 

[bharatj]

Lootlover43, or a representative of the defendant has 48 hours to take the stand. If a response is not submitted in that time frame, the case will close in the plaintiff’s favor.

 

[HeisenKurg]

is this a fucking joke? you want 2500KR? because i said something he did not like hell naw you aint getting nothing

 

[bharatj]

@HeisenKurg this is your first and only warning, you will not be using that kind of language in this courtroom. You are free to obtain legal counsel, or the courts can assist you in finding counsel, if that is something you wish. You have 24 hours to make a defense, otherwise the case will close in the plaintiffs favor.

 

[Evachu]

is this a fucking joke? you want 2500KR? because i said something he did not like hell naw you aint getting nothing

Look, you slandered my company. Did you think that you weren't going to be punished? This is court and you are getting the appropriate punishment. I suggest pay the fine or it could get much worse. What did you think was going to happen anyway?

 

[bharatj]

@EyFan4eva you were not called to the stand. Please do not make a statement without being summoned or asking the courts.

 

[Evachu]

Sorry

 

[IAmA_MoronXD]

Good afternoon your honor, may I please get an extension on this case? I was contacted last night and I haven’t had enough time to review the case, thank you.

 

[bharatj]

Are you the defense’s lawyer? If so, how much time do you need?

 

[IAmA_MoronXD]

Yes, I'm defending Lootlover43 in this case, I ask the court to provide me with at max 24 hours. For the sake of moving the case forward, I understand if I'm provided with less time. Thank you.

 

[bharatj]

You have a 24 hour extension to post a defense.

 

[IAmA_MoronXD]

In The Distinguished Court of The Stratham Republic
MOTION TO DISMISS
Date: 4/13/22

Eyfan4eva
HunterHo LLP (Ryan_88 Representing)
v.

Lootlover43

I. Motion To Dismiss
The Defendant motions to dismiss the case, respectfully based off the following:
1. The statement the defendant said was completely subjective and he was just giving his opinion on mealster.
2. His goal was simply to share his opinion on mealster and like he said he was just leaving his honest review.
3. Overall this case is completely ridiculous and it's within his rights to share the fact that he doesn't like a company.

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.

 

[Ryan_88]

Your honor, may I respond to the motion?

 

[bharatj]

@Ryan_88 you may respond.

 

[Ryan_88]

In The Distinguished Court of The Stratham Republic
ANSWER TO MOTION TO DISMISS
Date: 04/13/23

Angelia33
HunterHoLLP (Ryan_88 Representing)

v.

Lootlover43

I. Answer to Motion To Dismiss
1. "The statement the defendant said was completely subjective and he was just giving his opinion on mealster."

I don't disagree with this statement however I want to simply state that of course it is an opinion. As defined by the CSA (corporate slander act) slander is defined as "the Intentional spreading of misleading information regarding a company" or "Defaming a company with malicious intent". If it was a factual statement which there isn't any evidence to suggest such, then would it really be considered slander. Lootlover43 posted an advertisement to get the attention of those online and spread misleading information that have no factual basis in order to harm the company financially.

2. "His goal was simply to share his opinion on mealster and like he said he was just leaving his honest review."

There is a very distinct line drawn between sharing an opinion and slander. Sharing an opinion can be done in a calm manner that doesn't have to come off as an insult or rude.

3. "Overall this case is completely ridiculous and it's within his rights to share the fact that he doesn't like a company."

This statement is very much an insult to our laws created by parliament. If people had the right to such, why are there previous cases such as Woolsworth v. AdarHD. Why would parliament create the corporate slander act in the first place?

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.

 

[bharatj]

The motion to dismiss has been overruled. The defense has 48 hours to reply.

 

[Ryan_88]

Your honor, the defense has failed to respond entirely. I don't wish to come off as rushing the court but could we please have an update?

 

[bharatj]

I apologize for my late response, I’ve been out of town the past couple of days.

Looking at this case, the plaintiff claims the defendant has slandered the company Mealster. The damages requested amount to k2,500.

The defendant claims in the motion to dismiss that the words stated were simply an opinion, and not slanderous.

The Corporate Slander Act defines slander as “the intentional spreading of misleading information regarding a company” and “defaming a company with malicious intent.”

The court believes the actions of the defendant to be in line with this definition. The use of the advertisement channel shows the malicious intent behind those messages, as it is an attempt to reach a wider audience and damage the company.

Therefore, I declare the defendant guilty. However, I will not be awarding the entirety of the damages requested, as there’s no proof that the slanderous comments have amounted to a loss of business worth k2,000. I will be awarding the plaintiff k500 for legal fees and k1,000 as damages, amounting to a total of k1,500.

I wish for the Department of Justice to ensure that this transaction occurs within a timely manner.

Thank you.

 

[adarHD]

why was i tagged in this lmao