Lawsuit: Adjourned Woolworths v adarHD

[MegaMinerM]

In The Distinguished Court of The Stratham Republic

CIVIL ACTION

Date: 09/02/22



Woolworths (arwwy)

MegaMinerM



v.



adarHD



I. Description of Case

On the First of September, adarHD started insulting Woolworths and its owner arwwy. He has slandered Woolworths more than 10 times now (see evidence below) as well as writing /ad’s badmouthing the company (evidence below). Even after being asked to stop multiple times he hasn’t stopped. He is also telling players not to shop in his shop, and instead in his.

II. Parties

1. Woolworths (arwwy)
2. adarHD

III. Sequence of Events

1. Arwwy makes an ad advertising Woolworths

2. AdarHD makes an ad about the prices of Woolworths

3. AdarHD proceeds to insult and badmouth Woolworths and arwwy.

4. Arwwy asks AdarHD to stop multiple times but he doesn’t.


IV. Claims for Relief

1. AdarHD has badmouthed Woolworths multiple times, stopping potential customers from shopping there.
2. AdarHD has publicly insulted arwwy and Woolworths
3. AdarHD hasn’t stopped slandering arwwy and Woolworths, giving a bad reputation to the company.


V. Damages

1. 2k for Slandering Woolworths and arwwy, giving a bad reputation to the company.
2. 2k for badmouthing Woolworths and arwwy.
3. 1k for insulting arwwy and Woolworths,
4. 2k for loss of income
5. 500kr for legal fees




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.

 

[adarHD]

bruh

 

[adarHD]

aint no way arwwy told you to sue me

 

[arwwy]

I did

aint no way arwwy told you to sue me

 

[adarHD]

arwwy damn you
>:(

 

[adarHD]

you stabed me behind me back

 

[adarHD]

i trusted you arwwy ):

 

[Cooleagles2005]

Good Evening,

First of all, I'd like to warn both parties to refrain from speaking out of line and when uncalled to do so. This is not a place for chit-chat, this is a place for law and order.

Secondly, seeing as the Defendant, @adarHD, has already responded to this thread, I see no need in issuing a summons.
This being said, they have 48 hours to respond to the Plaintiff's claims either with the Answer to The Complaint or a Motion to Dismiss.
If the Defendant requires legal counsel, they are to speak up and say so, as the court will see that a public defender is supplied to them.
If the Defense fails to answer within 48 hours, a default ruling will be made in favor of the Plaintiff.

That is all,
Thank You

 

[Cooleagles2005]

Additionally, the Defendant's comments have been reverted to their original status as they have not been officially redacted, nor will they be.
We all make our choices to use our words, we all best know to stand behind them.

 

[Supermetro]

In The Distinguished Court of The Stratham Republic
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
Date: 09/05/2022
Woolworths (arwwy)
MegaMinerM (Attorney)

v.

adarHD
supermetro (Attorney)

I. Pleading

I, adarHD, plead Guilty to the accusations of Slander (Claim N.3) brought forth by the plaintiff.
I, adarHD, plead Not Guilty to the accusations of insulting Woolworths and arwwy (Claim N.2) and of Badmouthing Woolworths and arwwy (Claim N.1) brought forth by the plaintiff

II. Arguments
1. There is no evidence that shows an actual insulting of arwwy. The proofs that the plaintiff brought to the court only show cases of slander
2. There is not a law that specifies and determines what is the insulting of a company (Verbal harassment: Insulting, personal defamation, or attacking another player in private msgs, mail, forums, or in public chats.)
3. There are no laws that specify what badmouthing is and how it should be punished

-supermetro

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.

 

[Cooleagles2005]

Good Evening,

I will give the Plaintiff 48 hours to respond to the Defendant's pleading; specifically, their Not Guilty plea to accusations of insulting Woolworths and arwwy.
Depending on the response, I will either have heard enough to make a ruling or we will proceed until I do.

That is all,
Thank You

 

[MegaMinerM]

In response to the Defendant's pleading:

1. In Evidence 2 and 7 as well as his replies to the court case you can see adarHD insulting him for example “arwwy damn you”, “don’t feel bad for him”, “now shush”

2. In Evidence 5 and 6 adarHD advertised his businesses while also talking about Woolworth’s “high prices” and how his shop is better than Woolworths. I would say that is him insulting Woolworths.

3. Badmouthing according to multiple Dictionary Sources is criticising someone/something (in this case Woolworths). AdarHD has badmouthed Woolworths very often (which can be seen in almost all Evidence) mainly in Evidence 1,3,5,6. Not only does this stop customers from shopping as there were at least 10-15 players online during the times of the Badmouthing, but also gives Woolworths a bad name.

Furthermore, adarHD was asked multiple times to stop, yet every time he ignored what was said and continued.

 

[Cooleagles2005]

Good Evening,

I have heard enough evidence to make a verdict. This verdict will primarily discuss the two not guilty pleas from the Defendant in which the Plaintiff accuses the Defendant of 1.) Insulting Woolworths and Arwwy and 2.) Badmouthing Woolworths and Arwwy. In the end, I will discuss the total amount of reparations and damages to be rewarded to the Plaintiff.

~Verdict~
To begin, I believe the Plaintiff has taken some liberties when listing their accusations against the Defendant; specifically, the usage of insulting and badmouthing. To my knowledge, the Defendant is correct in arguing that these terms have never existed in our law vocabulary; however, that is not my issue, as this court system does allow for outside laws/topics to be argued. My issue is that these words and how they are presented throughout this case are no different than Corporate Slander or verbal harassment.
Corporate Slander doesn't actually have a specific definition in our laws (perhaps something lawmakers should look at) but the bill does list examples of what slander could be. Those examples are, "Intentional spreading of misleading information regarding a company" and "Defaming a company with malicious intent," both of which the Defendant has done; matter of fact, they admitted to doing. The definition of "badmouthing" as stated by the Plaintiff is to "criticize someone/something." In regards to the Defendant "badmouthing" the Plaintiff's company, that would fall under slander; the Defendant "badmouthing" the plaintiff would fall under verbal harassment (which is a staff issue). The word insulting is no different as it basically has the same definition as badmouthing.
The point that I am getting at is that the Plaintiff has argued what they thought were 3 different points when really they all are the same thing. Therefore, I find the Defendant Not Guilty of badmouthing or insulting the plaintiff.

~Reparations~
Original Damages:
1. 2k for Slandering Woolworths and arwwy, giving a bad reputation to the company.
2. 2k for badmouthing Woolworths and arwwy.
3. 1k for insulting arwwy and Woolworths,
4. 2k for loss of income
5. 500kr for legal fees

The Court hereby rewards the Plaintiff with the following:
1.) 2k for Slander against Woolworths
2.) 1k for "badmouthing" Woolworths. I counted this as I believe badmouthing to fall under slander and therefore counted it towards it. I only counted half however since badmouthing Arwwy would fall under verbal harassment, which is a staff issue.
3.) 500kr for "insulting Woolworths. Same as the above.
4.) 500kr for legal fees

I will not be rewarding the 2k for loss of income as the Plaintiff has shown no proof of a loss of income. I would consider proper proof of a loss of income to primarily exhibit a customer stating they will no longer use said businesses/services due to slanderous or libelous speech.

In conclusion, the Plaintiff is rewarded 4,000kr. I ask that the DoJ Minister, @TedHastings_AC12 , to see out the reparations. Additionally, if the Defendant does not hold this amount and can not pay back the damages, permission to seize assets is granted.

That is all,
Thank You
Court Adjourned

Court Adjourned

This case was presided by Judge Cooleagles