Good Evening,
I thank both parties for their quick responses and activity on this thread. I also apologize I couldn't always show the same for I have IRL obligations to attend to. Nonetheless, I am ready to present my verdict of this case.
~The Plaintiff~
The Plaintiff has come to the court arguing that the Defendant was in violation of a clause listed in their employment contract, specifically one which restricts them from selling to other players. Furthermore, in response to the Defense's arguments, they argued that the Defense incorrectly quit their job; therefore, leaving the contract valid and Defendant subject to punishment.
~The Defense~
The Defense, denying these allegations, have argued that they did indeed quit their job; therefore, making the contract void under the law. Additionally, they argue that they never directly "sold" to Lennonrissi because it was free of charge.
~Verdict~
There were two main arguments, the court believes, in which rendered towards this verdict. The first being if the Defendant actually broke their contract by selling to another player. The contract specifically states, "You cannot sell beverages to outside players or companies without Poseidon Sardines' approval." Unlike, say a normal Non-Compete in a contract, this clause focuses specifically on the idea that the worker cannot sell to other players; moreover, from my experience/knowledge, a normal Non-compete would be more general in overall being restricted to work, sell, trade, whatever to other players unless requested and accepted. Furthermore, after pondering what "sell" specifically means, the court finds that the Defendant did NOT sell to Lennonrissi. The court believes that the Defendant did not break this clause of the contract and did not sell to Lennonrissi but more gave away the beverages.
The second argument which plays a role in this verdict would be whether or not the Defendant actually quit their job. Perhaps, if the process of "requesting" to quit said job was more laid out in the contract (whilst attending to the demands of the Contract Legality Act); instead, of just being written in, the arguments of the Plaintiff might be more convincing and imperative. Subsequently, the lack of detail in the clause could be disruptive to the idea of employment at will, as well as possibly be abused by the employer. Therefore, since no "procedure" was laid out, and the court finds this clause on the line of reasonability, the court sees that the Defendant did indeed quit their job. This would then make this contract void under the law as per the contract states.
Overall, this here court rules in favor of the Defendant in this case. No reward is to be given to the Plaintiff nor Defense. I once again would like to thank both parties for a thrill of a court case. Both have presented great arguments, and have shown that even greater amounts of time and effort were put forward.
Thank you, that is all
Court Adjourned
I thank both parties for their quick responses and activity on this thread. I also apologize I couldn't always show the same for I have IRL obligations to attend to. Nonetheless, I am ready to present my verdict of this case.
~The Plaintiff~
The Plaintiff has come to the court arguing that the Defendant was in violation of a clause listed in their employment contract, specifically one which restricts them from selling to other players. Furthermore, in response to the Defense's arguments, they argued that the Defense incorrectly quit their job; therefore, leaving the contract valid and Defendant subject to punishment.
~The Defense~
The Defense, denying these allegations, have argued that they did indeed quit their job; therefore, making the contract void under the law. Additionally, they argue that they never directly "sold" to Lennonrissi because it was free of charge.
~Verdict~
There were two main arguments, the court believes, in which rendered towards this verdict. The first being if the Defendant actually broke their contract by selling to another player. The contract specifically states, "You cannot sell beverages to outside players or companies without Poseidon Sardines' approval." Unlike, say a normal Non-Compete in a contract, this clause focuses specifically on the idea that the worker cannot sell to other players; moreover, from my experience/knowledge, a normal Non-compete would be more general in overall being restricted to work, sell, trade, whatever to other players unless requested and accepted. Furthermore, after pondering what "sell" specifically means, the court finds that the Defendant did NOT sell to Lennonrissi. The court believes that the Defendant did not break this clause of the contract and did not sell to Lennonrissi but more gave away the beverages.
The second argument which plays a role in this verdict would be whether or not the Defendant actually quit their job. Perhaps, if the process of "requesting" to quit said job was more laid out in the contract (whilst attending to the demands of the Contract Legality Act); instead, of just being written in, the arguments of the Plaintiff might be more convincing and imperative. Subsequently, the lack of detail in the clause could be disruptive to the idea of employment at will, as well as possibly be abused by the employer. Therefore, since no "procedure" was laid out, and the court finds this clause on the line of reasonability, the court sees that the Defendant did indeed quit their job. This would then make this contract void under the law as per the contract states.
Overall, this here court rules in favor of the Defendant in this case. No reward is to be given to the Plaintiff nor Defense. I once again would like to thank both parties for a thrill of a court case. Both have presented great arguments, and have shown that even greater amounts of time and effort were put forward.
Thank you, that is all
Court Adjourned