Appeal: Accepted [2024] FCR 77 - Appeal

[Admin23]

Username: Admin23

I am representing a client

Who is your Client?: Reppal

File(s) attached

What Case are you Appealing?: [2024] FCR 77

Link to the Original Case: Lawsuit: Adjourned - Reppal v. EcoFinance [2024] FCR 77

Basis for Appeal: This case is about breach of contract due to an illegal edit made. The evidence proving this was provided as Exhibit A and the link worked when it was posted. The link no longer works, however it was working when it was posted. The presiding judge at the time had no issue with the link. The second presiding judge raised no issues with the link when he began presiding.


The court stated that there was no evidence provided.

The court’s opinion reads as follows:

1. While it appears that the contract was edited by the defendant on May 17th, which is after the date the contract was signed by the plaintiff, there is no way of knowing what was edited.
2. It is clear that they defendant did not want to admit that the contract was edited as can be seen when they were questioned by the plaintiff and they denied the accusation. It is not this courts place to speculate on what was edited, only to use what was proven. When it comes to this case, nothing was proven other then a edit was made on the 17th of the March.


The judge said that “nothing was proven other then [sic] a [sic] edit…”

This is factually incorrect. The proof was provided, however the court did not review it in a timely enough manner to take it into consideration. The burden of proof is on the Plaintiff. That proof was provided. There was no issue raised with that evidence. It is the court’s duty to review the evidence. The court did not do that.

The link no longer working when the judge decides to get around to reviewing it is out of my control. There is no procedural rule that states that links are invalid evidence. That means I provided the court with valid evidence under the eyes of the law and the court disregarded that evidence.

Supporting Evidence:

 

[Dartanboy]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
DECISION ON APPEAL

In a 2-0 decision (Justice SumoMC recused), the Supreme Court finds there is insufficient evidence of a contract being formed, making it null and void.

Particularly, when the original offer appears to have been tampered with, the offer is inherently misrepresented, removes the capacity of the offeree/acceptor to know the terms of the contract and nullifies their acceptance.

Thus, we have decided to remand the trial back to the Federal Court, where @SumoMC must strike his original verdict and make a new one, recognizing that the contract in question was nullified.