Lawsuit: Adjourned Aezal v. Morgan Sheraton & Co. [2023] FCR 43

Dartanboy

Dartanboy

Citizen
Justice Department
Supporter
Solicitor General
3rd Anniversary Legal Eagle Popular in the Polls Change Maker
Dartanboy
Dartanboy
Solicitor General
Joined
May 10, 2022
Messages
1,311
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION

Aezal (Solid Law Firm representing)
(Plaintiff)

v.

Morgan Sheraton & Co.
(Defendant)

COMPLAINT

Morgan Sheraton & Co defrauded Aezal out of $90,000 by making Aezal believe he would receive “all proceeds from the no coupon inflation swap issued to xLayzur.”

I. PARTIES
1. Morgan Sheraton & Co.
2. Aezal

II. FACTS
1. On January 29th, 2023, the Defendant offered an unenforceable contract to xLayzur.
2. The aforementioned contract was found unenforceable by this court on May 4, 2023.
3. The contract with Aezal, found in Exhibit A, clearly states: “xLayzur will send the total returns to Morgan Sheraton & Co which then must send all total returns to Aezal with no fees or money withheld.”
4. As seen in FCR 41, xLayzur never sent “returns to Morgan Sheraton & Co” because Morgan Sheraton & Co failed to fulfill their end of the unenforceable contract with xLayzur.
5. These fraudulent actions left Aezal without any benefit from the contract found in Exhibit A.
6. Fraud is defined by the White Collar Crack Down Act as “an intentional or reckless misrepresentation or omission of an important fact, especially a material one, to a victim who justifiably relies on that misrepresentation”

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. Fraud – by misrepresenting the important fact that Morgan Sheraton & Co was not fulfilling their end of the deal with xLayzur, Aezal justifiably relied on this misrepresentation and lost $90,000 as a result.
2. Breach of Contract – the contract depended on xLayzur sending “the total returns to Morgan Sheraton & Co” which never happened. Thus, the contract was breached and/or misrepresented.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. $90,000 in immediate losses.
2. $60,000 in lost investment, as the money would have grown over time with an economic mind as strong as Aezal investing it.
3. $100,000 in punitive damages, in accordance with the White Collar Crack Down Act.
4. $18,000 in legal fees.

EVIDENCE
Exhibit A (Aezal’s Contract with Morgan Sheraton & Co.):
1683517621817.png
Exhibit B (FCR 41): Lawsuit: Adjourned - Morgan Sheraton & Co. LLP v. xLayzur [2023] FCR 41

Consent to Represent:
1683517621837.png


By making this submission, I agree I understand the penalties of lying in court and the fact that I am subject to perjury should I knowingly make a false statement in court.

DATED: This 7th day of May, 2023
 
1683659807279.png

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
WRIT OF SUMMONS

Morgan Sheraton & Co. is required to appear before the court in the case of Aezal v. Morgan Sheraton & Co. Failure to appear within 48 hours of this summons will result in a default judgment in favor of the plaintiff.

I'd also like to remind both parties to be aware of the Court Rules and Procedures, including the option of an in-game trial should both parties request one.​
 
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO DISMISS

Aezal
Plaintiff

v.

Morgan Sheraton & Co
Defendant

PoR.png

MOTION TO DISMISS
Defendant move that the complaint in this case be dismissed, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:

1. Your honor, in the contract that the defendant signed with my client, in no part it indicated that we were to be held responsible to pay anyone. The contract signed with the plaintiff and the defendant stated that we had to sue Xlayzur which we fulfilled.

2. The contract was declared null and void in the case FCR 41. This makes it impossible for the plaintiff to receive their money. But as said before, in the contract the plaintiff voluntarily signed with my client, Morgan Sheraton & Co was not to be held liable for Aezal not receiving the money. The fact that the contract was declared null and void does not mean that my client needs to give a reimbursement to Aezal. The economic side of the server, is well-known that there are inherent risks associated with such endeavors. The plaintiff, having held the position of Reserve Chair in the past, would likely be aware of these risks. Therefore, it is important to recognize that the potential risks were not new or foreseeable at the time of entering into the contract. If the court were to declare the contract void solely based on unforeseeable risks or means out of the control of either party, it would set a problematic precedent for all contracts in general. Declaring every contract invalid in which the "losing" individual had unforeseeable outcomes would render contracts invalid altogether. Fraud was not present at the time of signing because the contract was willingly and knowingly signed. Therefore, it would not be reasonable to declare the contract void based on the outcome alone.

3. In the contract that the plaintiff signed, he took my client's possession of the inflation swap. The plaintiff gave 90 thousand dollars to my client for it, this can not be considered fraud, my client did do their part of the deal. Furthermore, for the breach of contract part, my client at no point breached their contract given how Morgan Sheraton & Co fulfilled the entirety of their outlined duties. The proceeds from Xlayzur do not exist, therefore they did not receive any. But we did our part which was to sue them which legally ended our part of the contract. Finally, the Cambridge Dictionary defines fraud as ''the crime of getting money by deceiving people''. My client at no point deceived the plaintiff, as said before with the experience that the plaintiff has in the sector he knows of the risks, my client did not give false promises to him.

DATED: This 11th day of May 2023
 
Your honor, may I respond to the motion to dismiss?
 
Your honor,
I request an extra 24 hours so I can spend Mother's Day with my mother.
 
Your honor, with all due respect the counselor has had since Thursday at 10:03 am (The time when the motion to dismiss was posted) To begin working on this. Approximately 59 hours have passed, which is more than enough time for the counselor to have worked on their response.
 
Your honor,
I've been quite busy, including a final exam on Thursday and my friends' graduation Saturday. I tend not to ask for extensions unless  multiple IRL circumstances dictate that I need one.

Respectfully, Aladeen has no idea what my life is like IRL and cannot speak to whether I have had "more than enough time."

Thank you.
 
Apologies for my delay. I've fallen ill and took the day off due to it. Extension granted.
 
your honor, I would like to request a sidebar
 
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
RESPONSE TO MOTION TO DISMISS

The Defense makes three points in their Motion to Dismiss:

1. Your honor, in the contract that the defendant signed with my client, in no part it indicated that we were to be held responsible to pay anyone. The contract signed with the plaintiff and the defendant stated that we had to sue Xlayzur which we fulfilled.

Your honor, the contract was fraudulent. It absolutely held Morgan Sheraton & Co. responsible to pay Aezal, by saying "xLayzur will send the total returns to Morgan Sheraton & Co which then must send all total returns to Aezal with no fees or money withheld." This never happened, and thus is fraud.

2. The contract was declared null and void in the case FCR 41. This makes it impossible for the plaintiff to receive their money. But as said before, in the contract the plaintiff voluntarily signed with my client, Morgan Sheraton & Co was not to be held liable for Aezal not receiving the money. The fact that the contract was declared null and void does not mean that my client needs to give a reimbursement to Aezal. The economic side of the server, is well-known that there are inherent risks associated with such endeavors. The plaintiff, having held the position of Reserve Chair in the past, would likely be aware of these risks. Therefore, it is important to recognize that the potential risks were not new or foreseeable at the time of entering into the contract. If the court were to declare the contract void solely based on unforeseeable risks or means out of the control of either party, it would set a problematic precedent for all contracts in general. Declaring every contract invalid in which the "losing" individual had unforeseeable outcomes would render contracts invalid altogether. Fraud was not present at the time of signing because the contract was willingly and knowingly signed. Therefore, it would not be reasonable to declare the contract void based on the outcome alone.

The contract in FCR 41 was declared null, meaning there was no inflation swap, meaning my client was unable to take the Defendant's position in the inflation swap. This is fraud.

3. In the contract that the plaintiff signed, he took my client's possession of the inflation swap. The plaintiff gave 90 thousand dollars to my client for it, this can not be considered fraud, my client did do their part of the deal. Furthermore, for the breach of contract part, my client at no point breached their contract given how Morgan Sheraton & Co fulfilled the entirety of their outlined duties. The proceeds from Xlayzur do not exist, therefore they did not receive any. But we did our part which was to sue them which legally ended our part of the contract. Finally, the Cambridge Dictionary defines fraud as ''the crime of getting money by deceiving people''. My client at no point deceived the plaintiff, as said before with the experience that the plaintiff has in the sector he knows of the risks, my client did not give false promises to him.

Once again, by the verdict of FCR 41, there was no inflation swap. Also, Morgan Sheraton & Co did not fulfill their duties.

Additionally, the Defense asserts that fraud is defined by the Cambridge Dictionary as "the crime of getting money by deceiving people." First of all, the Defendant did get money by deceiving my client, but secondly, and most importantly, the Cambridge Dictionary doesn't matter here. The White-Collar Crack Down Act defines Fraud as "an intentional or reckless misrepresentation or omission of an important fact, especially a material one, to a victim who justifiably relies on that misrepresentation; and the victim party or entity suffered actual, quantifiable injury or damages as a result of the misrepresentation or omission.”

Thank you.
 
Aladeen said:
your honor, I would like to request a sidebar
Click to expand...
Your honor,

The Plaintiff does not wish for this request to be granted, and believes approval of such a request unnecessarily delays this case, violating the right to a fair and speedy trial.
 
Thank you for your response.

I will be granting the sidebar request. Please be aware that this will take place in Discord.
 
I will be rejecting the motion to dismiss.

I will extend 24 hours to the defendant to provide an answer to complaint so the court knows which facts are being disputed.
 
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

Aezal
Plaintiff

v.

Morgan Sheraton & Co (Aladeen22 representing)
Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
1. Affirms that the defendant and the plaintiff signed a contract related to inflation swap.
2. Disputes that the contract was fraudulent and unenforceable.
3. Disputes that there was any fraud and or Breach of Contract.


II. DEFENCES

1. The contract between the Plaintiff and my client, Morgan Sheraton & Co, says explicitly that we are not liable for any payment obligations. However, it has been accepted that my client transferred possession of the inflation swap to the Plaintiff upon reception of the agreed-upon $90,000 payment.

2. In FCR 41, the contract in question was declared null and void. As a result, the Plaintiff will be unable to obtain the desired payment. However, it is important to point out that the Plaintiff took part into the contract with my client voluntarily, with the understanding that Morgan Sheraton & Co would not be held liable for any financial damages experienced. The Plaintiff, who previously served as Reserve Chair, is fully aware of the inherent dangers involved with the economic aspects of the server sector. As a result, potential risks were not unfamiliar or unanticipated at the time of the contract establishment. Furthermore, because the contract was signed willingly and knowingly, fraud cannot be claimed.

3. The Plaintiff voluntarily received possession of the inflation swap in exchange for the agreed payment of $90,000. This transaction cannot be considered fraud, because my client completed their end of the contract. Furthermore, there has been no breach of contract by my client, Morgan Sheraton & Co, because we have properly completed all of our contractual obligations. While the profits from Xlayzur may not exist, it is important that we point out that it was our job to begin legal procedures against them, which we did successfully. This fulfillment of our contract responsibilities completes our obligations under the contract.

By making this submission, I agree I understand the penalties of lying in court and the fact that I am subject to perjury should I knowingly make a false statement in court.

DATED: This 17th day of May of 2023
 
Thank you for your response. The Court will now move to opening statements.

The plaintiff has 48 hours to provide the court with its opening statement.
 
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OPENING STATEMENT

I. REBUTTAL AND OPENING STATEMENTS

The Defense asserts multiple claims which are not true.

1. "The contract between the Plaintiff and my client, Morgan Sheraton & Co, says explicitly that we are not liable for any payment obligations."

No... it doesn't. In fact, it says that xLayzur will pay "Morgan Sheraton & Co which then must send all total returns to Aezal"

2. "it has been accepted that my client transferred possession of the inflation swap to the Plaintiff upon reception of the agreed-upon $90,000 payment."

No... there was no inflation-swap, as determined in FCR 41. This is the hugest misrepresentation and blatant lie. The "inflation swap issued to xLayzur on January 29th, 2023" was a null and void contract -- thus, not an inflation swap.

3. "In FCR 41, the contract in question was declared null and void. As a result, the Plaintiff will be unable to obtain the desired payment. However, it is important to point out that the Plaintiff took part into the contract with my client voluntarily, with the understanding that Morgan Sheraton & Co would not be held liable for any financial damages experienced."

While my client did take part in the contract voluntarily, he did so because he believed two lies made by the Defendant. These lies were already mentioned in points 1 and 2.

Additionally, my client did not have an understanding that Morgan Sheraton & Co would not be held liable for any financial damages experienced. In fact, it was my client's understanding that Morgan Sheraton & Co would have participated in an inflation swap with xLayzur, however, as seen in FCR 41, they did not.

4. "The Plaintiff, who previously served as Reserve Chair, is fully aware of the inherent dangers involved with the economic aspects of the server sector. As a result, potential risks were not unfamiliar or unanticipated at the time of the contract establishment."

Yes, the Plaintiff was aware of the dangers involved with an inflation swap. He could, for example, have lost money in the swap due to deflation, but a danger that is not expected (and is actually illegal) is claiming to be participating in an inflation swap, when in reality, you are not (again, see FCR 41).

5. "Furthermore, because the contract was signed willingly and knowingly, fraud cannot be claimed."

That's simply not how it works. You can willingly sign a contract because you believe a misrepresentation. This is still Fraud.

6. "The Plaintiff voluntarily received possession of the inflation swap in exchange for the agreed payment of $90,000. This transaction cannot be considered fraud, because my client completed their end of the contract."

Once again, your honor, it is clear that there was no inflation swap. As seen in FCR 41, the "contract" with xLayzur was not a legally binding contract (and was not an inflation swap). This is “an intentional or reckless misrepresentation or omission of an important fact . . . to a victim who justifiably relies on that misrepresentation” -- which is Fraud. There's simply no other way to put it.

7. "Furthermore, there has been no breach of contract by my client, Morgan Sheraton & Co, because we have properly completed all of our contractual obligations. While the profits from Xlayzur may not exist, it is important that we point out that it was our job to begin legal procedures against them, which we did successfully. This fulfillment of our contract responsibilities completes our obligations under the contract."

The Defendant's contractual obligations included the following:
- Releasing position on an inflation swap to Aezal
- Collecting returns from xLayzur
- Sending the money to Aezal
- Suing xLayzur if he didn't pay up

Your honor, the Defendant only did one of those (suing xLayzur). The court found that there was no inflation swap, and it is clear that Morgan Sheraton & Co never collected returns from xLayzur nor send any money to Aezal.

By making this submission, I agree I understand the penalties of lying in court and the fact that I am subject to perjury should I knowingly make a false statement in court.

DATED: This 19th day of May, 2023
 
The defense has 48 hours to provide its opening statement.
 
your honor I request a 24h extension due to personal issues.
 
Extension granted. An additional 24 hours is granted from the original deadline.
 
Your honor, I apologize for my tardiness, today in the morning I had a medical appointment due to blood tests. I slept through once the appointment ended. I will post the opening statement shortly if it’s still allowed.
 
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OPENING STATEMENT

Aezal
Plaintiff

v.

Morgan Sheraton & Co
Defendant

I OPENING STATEMENT

We're here today to defend Morgan Sheraton & Co against the claims brought by Aezal. We want to clear up any misunderstandings and present the facts as they truly are.

Aezal's main argument is that MSC didn't pay the $150,000 before FCR 41, which supposedly nullified the contract. But here's the thing: the contract clearly states that MSC would receive $90,000 in exchange for releasing their position on the inflation swap to Aezal. This is a crucial point that proves we weren't liable for the initial $150,000 payment.

We want to make it clear that we didn't engage in any fraud or breach of contract. We acted exactly as the agreement stipulated. Once Aezal paid us the $90,000, we handed over the inflation swap to them. We fulfilled our obligations based on the terms of the contract.

We understand that there might be some confusion regarding the concept of a nullified contract due to the fact we did not give Aezal $150,000. But it's important to focus on the specific provisions and responsibilities laid out in the contract between MSC and Aezal. Our stance is straightforward: we did what we were supposed to do according to the agreement, and any claims of fraud or breach of contract hold no merit.

In conclusion, we firmly deny the allegations against Morgan Sheraton & Co and assert that we acted in good faith, following the terms of the contract. We ask for your careful consideration of the facts we've presented and urge you to rule in favor of the defendant, Morgan Sheraton & Co.

By making this submission, I agree I understand the penalties of lying in court and the fact that I am subject to perjury should I knowingly make a false statement in court.

DATED: This 24th day of May of 2023
 
Your honor,

Due to only being a few minutes late and the apparent urgent nature of the IRL circumstances, the Plaintiff supports allowing the above filing to be submitted.
 
Your honor, I apologize for speaking out of turn but I would like to know when the trial could begin again if you could say it like that.
 
Apologies for the delay. I just moved back home from college and haven’t been able to boot up a computer.

Does either party have any witness or expert testimonials? Please provide the court with a list and what reason they pertain to the case. Both parties have 48 hours.
 
The Plaintiff has no witnesses, your honor.
 
The defendant has no witnesses
 
The Court will now move into closing statements.

The plaintiff has 48 hours to provide its closing statement.
 
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CLOSING STATEMENT

I. REBUTTAL TO DEFENSE'S OPENING STATEMENTS
1. "Aezal's main argument is that MSC didn't pay the $150,000 before FCR 41, which supposedly nullified the contract. But here's the thing: the contract clearly states that MSC would receive $90,000 in exchange for releasing their position on the inflation swap to Aezal. This is a crucial point that proves we weren't liable for the initial $150,000 payment."

First of all, that is one of the arguments. Not the entire/main argument. Nonetheless, this court already found that MSC was liable for the initial $150,000 payment, so that's a terrible argument to bring up now. Secondly, this fact is further enforced by this contract stating that MSC would be "liable to sue xLayzur" if he didn't pay.

2. "We want to make it clear that we didn't engage in any fraud or breach of contract. We acted exactly as the agreement stipulated. Once Aezal paid us the $90,000, we handed over the inflation swap to them. We fulfilled our obligations based on the terms of the contract.

We understand that there might be some confusion regarding the concept of a nullified contract due to the fact we did not give Aezal $150,000. But it's important to focus on the specific provisions and responsibilities laid out in the contract between MSC and Aezal. Our stance is straightforward: we did what we were supposed to do according to the agreement, and any claims of fraud or breach of contract hold no merit."

This was extremely fraudulent. I will expand on this in Part II of this filing.

II. CLOSING STATEMENTS
Your honor, this case is clear.

1. The contract my client signed was to "receive all proceeds from the no coupon Inflation swap issued to xLayzur on January 29th, 2023."

The Defendant did not even attempt to follow through on this, completely nullifying the inflation swap by not holding up their end of the contract (as seen in FCR 41).

The fact that the Defendant had no intention of fulfilling their end of the contract with xLayzur is an important fact, and thus, lying about it and/or omitting it is Fraud, as defined by the White Collar Crack Down Act ("an intentional or reckless misrepresentation or omission of an important fact, especially a material one, to a victim who justifiably relies on that misrepresentation").

Not only was this Fraud, but it is also a completely nullified contract, as xLayzur did not "send the total returns to Morgan Sheraton & Co" as required for this contract to be legal.

Thank you.
 
The defense has 48 hours to provide its closing statement.
 
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CLOSING STATEMENT

Aezal
Plaintiff

v.

Morgan Sheraton & Co
Defendant

Your Honor,

I am here today to defend Morgan Sheraton & Co (MSC) against Aezal's baseless allegations. It is critical to clarify the facts and correct the record.

Let us first examine the plaintiff's claims of fraud and breach of contract. They imply that MSC committed fraud by failing to fulfill its end of the contract. The evidence, however, clearly shows otherwise. MSC followed the arrangement precisely by transferring the inflation swap to Aezal after receiving the agreed-upon payment of $90,000. There was no fraud or breach of contract on our part.

Misconceptions and selective interpretation support the plaintiff's case. They accuse us of fraud and violation of contract, which is completely false. MSC performed with the highest level of honesty and met all of its duties. We rapidly handed out the inflation exchange once Aezal paid the agreed-upon $90,000. As any responsible party would, we behaved honestly and in good faith.

We have provided the truth throughout this trial, Your Honor. The evidence shows that MSC operated properly and kept its half of the bargain. The plaintiff's claims are without merit and are only an attempt to damage our name and get illegitimate advantages.

Finally, I urge Your Honor to see past the plaintiff's distractions. We faithfully fulfilled the deal, always according to its requirements. I sincerely request a decision in favor of the defendant, Morgan Sheraton & Co, to ensure that justice can be done in this case.

By making this submission, I agree I understand the penalties of lying in court and the fact that I am subject to perjury should I knowingly make a false statement in court.

DATED: This 1st day of June of 2023
 
Good evening your honor, I would like to know if there are any updates on the verdict, if possible.
 

Verdict


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
VERDICT
Aezal v. Morgan Sheraton & Co. [2023] FCR 43

I. PLAINTIFF'S POSITION
1. The defendant failed to communicate key details in its contract with the plaintiff.
2. The plaintiff relied on these misrepresented facts and signed a contract with the defendant.
3. Because of the misrepresentation of key facts, the plaintiff lost financial assets.

II. DEFENDANT'S POSITION
1. The defendant never misrepresented the facts when the plaintiff initially signed this contract.
2. In [2023] FCR 41, xLayzur’s Inflation Swap contract was declared null and void, so Morgan Sheraton & Co. were never able to collect on the inflation swap contract.
3. The defendant did not fail to perform any of its duties in the contract and did all of the terms requested of them in the contract with the plaintiff.

III. THE COURT OPINION
1. This case is reliant on the initial No Coupon Inflation Swap contract which the defendant signed with xLayzur. Without the No Coupon Inflation Swap, the contract's terms would not be enforceable.
2. In [2023] FCR 41, the Federal Court declared the No Coupon Inflation Swap contract with xLayzur null and void. This means the Inflation Swap was never enforceable.
3. According to the Foundation for Contract Law, all expressed intentions must be a condition. The condition in question is the first paragraph of the contract made between both parties. In this condition, the No Coupon Inflation Swap contract between the defendant and xLayzur was not enforceable. This means that this condition of the contract was not enforceable, breaking the entire contract apart.
3a. In the Foundation for Contract Law, an offer is an “unequivocal statement of terms on which you are prepared to do business.” However, since the terms set in this deal are ambiguous given that No Coupon Inflation Swap which this contract revolves around was never enforceable, the offer made was null in the first place.
4. In the opinion of the Federal Court, the contract made between Aezal and Morgan Sheraton & Co. is null and void because the terms in the contract are ambiguous which violates what an offer can be in Contract Law.
5. Since the contract is null and void, breach of contract cannot take place.
6. Since the contract is null and void, the fraud claimed to have hurt the plaintiff cannot take place since it takes place only if the contract was enforceable, which it is not.

IV. DECISION
The Federal Court hereby rules in favor of the defendant.
The Federal Court declares the contract between Aezal and Morgan Sheraton & Co. null and void.

The Federal Court orders that $90,000 (the premium for the call) be returned to the plaintiff due to the contract being declared null and void.

The Federal Court thanks all involved.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top