@CrackedAmoeba Was the contract made in a voice chat? If not please, provide evidence of such a contract existing.
Lawsuit: Adjourned Amoeba Co.'s Redstone Division VS United Casino & Resort
- Thread starter CrackedAmoeba
- Start date
- Status
Your honor,
The contract was made over VC. If the court does not render a verbal contract viable, then it is also not required I give back any payment as the defendant paid me before hand by their choice and there was still a job done.
The contract was made over VC. If the court does not render a verbal contract viable, then it is also not required I give back any payment as the defendant paid me before hand by their choice and there was still a job done.
Thank you. Would the defense have anything more to add before I begin reviewing all testimony provided.
Your honor, I would like to point out that before the incident that Pig_Girl had described happened, the plaintiff, Pig_Girl, and myself had been in a voice chat to discuss the project that ACRD had been commissioned to do. Considering Pig_Girl was not part of making the deal that would imply one of two things. Either Pig_Girl is part of our company, or Pig_Girl is a witness. If the plaintiff had assumed the former, then that would imply that the plaintiff had lied about not knowing that Pig_Girl is part of the company. If the plaintiff had assumed the latter, then that would imply that the plaintiff had admitted to having intentions to use witness intimidation by saying that they were recording the conversation in an attempt to scare Pig_Girl. Either way, both of these scenarios involve the plaintiff threatening the integrity of this case.
Thank you max, I will consider this in my review.
After reviewing the evidence provided in the case I have come to the conclusion that this case would have been a lot easier if the two parties had a written contract. Let this serve as a lesson.
That being said, the evidence provided clearly proves that the defense paid the plaintiff in full prior to the work being completed. 10,000 Krunas is not a small sum of money, and what the Plaintiff is asking for as compensation (K,5000 for stealing property) is unnecessary considering Mr. Cracked had already received k10,000 in full prior to the work being completed.
I am ruling in favor of the Plaintiff, but will not be awarding him the compensation requested.
Adjourned.
That being said, the evidence provided clearly proves that the defense paid the plaintiff in full prior to the work being completed. 10,000 Krunas is not a small sum of money, and what the Plaintiff is asking for as compensation (K,5000 for stealing property) is unnecessary considering Mr. Cracked had already received k10,000 in full prior to the work being completed.
I am ruling in favor of the Plaintiff, but will not be awarding him the compensation requested.
Adjourned.
Court Adjourned
This case was presided by Judge _Info_- Status