Lawsuit: Dismissed shadownba vs Saarthigaming

[pet_the_fish]

In The Supreme Court of The Stratham Republic
CIVIL ACTION
Date: 04/11/2024
shadownba
pet_the_fish representing (Wright & Co. Law Office)
v.

Saarthigaming

I. Description of Case
The Plaintiff brings forth the following causes of action and alleges the following against the Defendant:
shadownba created a Non Disclosure Aggrement (NDA) to avoid players leaking information regarding their political campaign for PM, Saarthigaming signed this NDA and then preceded to release sensitive information regarding their political campaign, breaking the agreement.

II. Parties
1. shadownba
2. Saarthigaming
3. veryreal_alex (witness)

III. Sequence of Events
1. shadownba created their NDA relating to the campaign
2. shadownba then proceeded to invite Saarthigaming to their campaign provided they signed the NDA
3. Saarthigaming signed the NDA on 20th October 2024
4. Saarthigaming then released sensitive information on 2nd November 2024, and days prior to this (Evidence 1 and 2)

IV. Claims for Relief
1. In the attached NDA it is stated:
'For the purposes of this Agreement, "Confidential Information" shall mean any information provided by one Party to the other that is related to any campaign, strategy, or plan, whether disclosed in oral, written, electronic, or any other form. Confidential Information includes but is not limited to:

• Campaign strategy and goals
• Team structure and roles
• Marketing and outreach plans
• Communication scripts and templates
• Data analytics and internal reports
• Private or sensitive discussions regarding any campaign activity'

2. It is further stated that:
'The receiving Party agrees to:

• Keep all Confidential Information confidential and take all necessary precautions to protect it from unauthorized disclosure.
• Not disclose any Confidential Information to any third parties without prior written consent of the disclosing Party.
• Use Confidential Information solely for purposes related to the collaboration on campaign activities and not for personal or any other purposes.'

3. Also stated is:
'The obligations of confidentiality under this Agreement shall remain in effect indefinitely, even after the campaign ends, and shall not apply to any information which:

• Is already known to the receiving Party at the time of disclosure;
• Is or becomes publicly available without breach of this Agreement;
• Is received from a third party without breach of any confidentiality obligation; or
• Is required to be disclosed by law, provided the receiving Party gives the disclosing Party prompt notice of such required disclosure.'

V. Damages
1. 30,000kr as stated in the agreement
2. 1500kr in legal fees

Link to NDA: https://docs.google.com/document/d/10rUbZ7lV95YpGfjRh6rhBnBkReV0p7h8yhNijqqbejI/edit?tab=t.0
Evidence 1:

Evidence 2:

Evidence 3:

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.

 

[Cherub54321]

@Saarthigaming is hereby summoned to the court to acknowledge the case. If the Defendant, @Saarthigaming , 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 Cherub54321 Bear in mind to not reply to court cases unless summoned by the Judge!

 

[AlienBloom20204]

Your Honor, I will be representing the defendant

 

[AlienBloom20204]

In The Supreme Court of The Stratham Republic
MOTION TO DISMISS
Date: 11/05/24
shadownba
pet_the_fish representing (Wright & Co. Law Office)

v.

Saarthigaming

I. Motion To Dismiss
The Defendant motions to dismiss the case, respectfully based off the following:
I want to begin by stating the Unreasonably High Penalty Cost of 30000kr. It is more of a punitive measure that does not reflect actual damages. Also, this Nda is for maintaining confidentiality, this same info as stated by Saar was shared with others including the defendant and others by Shadownba without any NDA given. This shows that the NDA is invalid because the disclosing party did not safeguard the confidentiality of the information, thus weakening its claim that this information requires special protection. As well as in the Contractual Law Basics Act, states that “ The Offeror must, upon stating an offer to another party, set a time frame of acceptance. Additional time may be granted by the Offeror upon the request of the Offeree if needed.”. There was no timeframe set by Shadownba instead the defendant said I can get back to you in 24 hours with their decision but no timeframe was shown. As well as in the same act in section 7, “ Lapse of time: an offer will cease to exist if not accepted within any specified time limit set by the offeror.” There was no indefinite defined timeframe for how long the NDA would last it states “ date of signing and shall remain in effect indefinitely, even after the campaign ends”. This is very vague and no real time frame is shown in which the NDA must be clear. The act also states, “If any one of these criteria are absent from the arrangement, it will not suffice for a contract, meaning it will not legally bind the two parties together.” Therefore after all these measures were not followed this contract would not be legally binding. In conclusion, the Defendant respectfully requests that the Court dismiss the Plaintiff’s case due to the NDA’s failure to meet the requirements of the Contractual Law Basics Act, lack of enforceable confidentiality measures, and the imposition of an unreasonably high penalty.

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.

 

[Cherub54321]

Good Evening,

The Plaintiff may now respond to the motion to dismiss.

 

[pet_the_fish]

In The Supreme Court of The Stratham Republic
MOTION TO DISMISS
Date: 11/05/24
shadownba
pet_the_fish representing (Wright & Co. Law Office)
v.
Saarthigaming

Response to Motion To Dismiss

To address the first point. The NDA is a simple document to understand. Any player who signs it would read it and notice that if they are to leak any sensitive information, shadownba can press charges of 30000kr. If the player is not happy with this price they could either not agree to sign the NDA, or offer a lower price. The problem with having a lower price, however, is that there is much less of an incentive to not release sensitive information as the potential risk is much lower. This would mean that players might be more inclined to break the NDA.

Moving onto the second point. The information that has been shared to me has firstly already been released to public knowledge, all be it unwillingly, so if I wished to I would be able to locate it. Furthermore, the actual information shared has a) had the sensitive information (DoS pick name) blurred, and has also been released in news by SBC on the 3rd of November. Also, there is not evidence to show that I have or have not signed the NDA.

On the third point, while this law states that there must be time frame set, the defendant did not pick up on this point and moved onto signing the agreement, thus passing it into a legal tie, and also through doing so, in setting their own 24hr limit, it could be argued that there was a time limit set, agreed by both parties, and the contract was signed within this time limit.

To conclude, I would like to state that the defendant has missed the possible opportunities to make the points a solid argument, and that they are merely bringing up possible holes in the agreement that have been sealed by them signing the NDA

 

[AlienBloom20204]

Your honor, I would like a response to this response before you make your judgment.

 

[Cherub54321]

Good Afternoon,

You may proceed with a response

 

[AlienBloom20204]

Good Afternoon,

You may proceed with a response

Your honor, for the heads up may take up to 24 hours, for response.

 

[AlienBloom20204]

In The Supreme Court of The Stratham Republic
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
Date: 11/06/24
shadownba
pet_the_fish representing (Wright & Co. Law Office)

v.

Saarthigaming

I. Answer to Complaint

1. The plaintiff's justification of the penalty is based on the role as a deterrent. However, the excessive penalty goes beyond what is typically allowed in a basic contract law for confidential agreements, which is to be an estimate of the actual value. A penalty of this size is punitive rather than to estimate the damages caused by real harm. In the contractual basis law, it is not stated but is implied roughly by contract law that although the defendant did not negotiate is irrelevant in the fact that, penalties must align with an estimated cost of real harm.

2. The plaintiff states that the publicly available information has been blurred. However, the plaintiff states that SBC published the information on November 3rd, demonstrating the plaintiff's failure to take reasonable measures to keep it confidential. The plaintiff has shown disregard for the confidentiality of this NDA. In general, contract law includes the party that enforces the contract, who must also keep confident standards themselves; otherwise, the contract lacks genuine absence of the need for it to be protected.

3. The plaintiff claims that “getting back to you in 24 hours” created an acceptance time frame. The contractual basis law specifically states that “The Offeror must, upon stating an offer to another party, set a time frame of acceptance.” This directly conflicts with this section and breaks making the contract voidable. I would also like to point out that the plaintiff used the defendants' statement as an ambiguity of the agreement which lacks the clear terms needed for a legally binding contract.

4. While in some NDAs can carry not defined confidentiality terms, these terms must be clearly defined the the Nda and relevant. Here, the NDA lacks any clearly defined time which leads to imbalance. Additionally, it conflicts with section 7(5) which requires defined time. These prove that it is unenforceable a vague.

5. According to section 4(4) of the CoLB act if any of these are “absent from the arrangement, it will not suffice for a contract, meaning it will not legally bind the two parties together.” The NDA fails to meet these requirements. Making it not legally binding.

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.

 

[Cherub54321]

Good Afternoon,

After reviewing the arguments presented, as well as the applicable legislation, I have decided to sustain the motion to dismiss. My reasoning for this decision is detailed below.

As detailed in the Contractual Law Basics Act, the agreement must meet the following criteria in order to become a legally recognised contract. Offer, Acceptance, Consideration, Capacity, Legality, Legal intent and Format. Since the criteria of capacity, legality and format are not explicitly stated within the bill, it is up to the judiciary to interpret what we thought was the intention of the lawmaker when this bill was passed. Therefore, I will be taking them to mean the following:
- Capacity means that the parties entering into the contract are in a position to be able to do so, ie they are not being forced into entering the contract through ways outside the law, and that they have the legal knowledge to understand the contract that they are entering into.
- Legality means that neither party is required to act outside the law in order to fulfil the contract.
- Format means that the contract is laid out in a clear and easy to understand way, with no hidden clauses and with all other criteria met.

The agreement presented by the plaintiff fails to meet all of the criteria required for it to be viewed as a legally binding contract. While Offer, Capacity and Legality do all appear to be met, and legal intent is presumed to be met as no proof to the contrary has been presented,, the rest are not. As the Defence pointed out, the bill specifically states that a timeframe for acceptance must be presented by the offering party, which they failed to do. The Offeree stating they will respond within 24 hours does not constitute a timeframe for acceptance, and therefore acceptance as a criteria is not met. Consideration, the price to be paid under a contract, is also required in order for a contract to be legally valid. Even in this case, where no physical goods or services are being transferred, a payment from one of the parties to the other is required to be agreed within a contract. While this could be as little as possible in order to meet this criteria in a contract, this is not present in this case, therefore the criteria is not met. Because there is no timeframe for acceptance presented, nor is there any consideration, the format criteria is not met, as the agreement presented fails to contain all the criteria required.

Due to the contract presented failing to meet 3 of the criteria, it is therefore not legally binding. As a side note, if all of the criteria were met, then the high penalty cost would not be a reason for dismissal, however the judge could lower the amount due if they felt it was unreasonably high for the damages caused, as part of their role in resolving disputes. This decision could of course be appealed by either party, if they feel it is unfair.

Case Dismissed

Court Dismissed

This case was presided by Judge Cherub54321