IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OPENING STATEMENT
Your honour,
As the Plaintiff had already touched on all of their core points, let's revisit them and show why the Defendant's unlawful inaction damaged my client.
As established by precedent, bids are contract proposals, and each is an individual, autonomous proposal. Each bid builds based on the previous, allowing auctions to be competitive and fair. If a contract proposal is not made bona fide, and if it is based on knowingly false information, it is not a contract, nor a proposal for one; it is an illegitimate, legally worthless piece of paper. Bids that are not supported by financial means of the bidder, made with intent to soley make an individual counter the bid with a higher one, is not a valid proposal, but a sham, and that is supported by DCT guidelines and practice. Those were the circumstances in which the Plaintiff found herself, and which this very Commonwealth failed to remedy. Since the invalid bids, i.e. invalid contract proposals, incurred a supposedly valid contract proposal by the Plaintiff, who acted bona fide, it is more than reasonable to argue that the Plaintiff was misled, and not able to clearly judge the situation.
Now, the Commonwealth steps in. Upon finding all of this out, the sensible and right decision was to strike the invalid bids. What it failed, though, is to recognise that the Plaintiff was fraudulently led to the last bid they posted, which was based on fraudulent bids. This failed to remedy malicious intents of some to make the Plaintiff unduly pay more than necessary to acquire the property. All the Commonwealth had to do was reverse the bids, and justice would have been rightly served. But it failed, and upon an appeal, doubled down.
Regarding the attempt to settle the case out-of-court, the Defendant claimed that the Plaintiff acted in a manner incompatible with an amicable resolution of differences, and that, in doing so, proved she is greedy and wants to win this case for money, and not to remedy damage done to her. Of course, the evidence provided by the Plaintiff, which the Defendant initially failed to provide (it should be duly noted that the Plaintiff's counsel, upon further consideration, agrees with the Court's overturn of the perjury charge), the Defendant acted grossly unprofessionally and in bad faith, belittling the case's merits and insulting the Plaintiff counsel's competence. It is for these reasons, as well as the opinion how the compensation provided was insufficient, that the Plaintiff retreated from the settlement.
DATED: This 23rd day of July, 2024