Closing Statement
May it please the court,
Your honour, opposing counsel, witnesses, and other esteemed guests of the court, thank you for your time today. Throughout this trial, a number of arguments have come your way in defence of the defendant’s clearly outrageous and illegal behaviour. From technicalities, to “he’s really sorry”, these arguments have thoroughly failed to justify the flagrant misrepresentation and bad-faith dealing exhibited by the defendant in carrying out a public auction. Not only that, but witness testimony has showcased for the court the sheer extent to which this behaviour disrupted the normal economic functioning of those who participated in the auction, and has provided crucial context to understand just how objectionable the behaviour of the defendant has been.
Plaintiffs Boomsides and Pepecuu began bidding on the property auction that the defendant set up of their own will, with no intention of backing down from the auction. One plaintiff testified that the plot, an empty property, had a potential value of up to $50,000, given the scarcity of land and the plot’s location. Both plaintiffs placed valid and binding bids, but the defendant sold off the plot for a mere $23,000, less than half of what one plaintiff would likely have bought it for. With bids ongoing, the 24-hour window not yet having elapsed, and the initial bid message having listed no buyout price, this impromptu sellout represented a clear breach of the public contract that binds bidders and auctioneers on the part of the defendant. Not only this, but by lying about having not actually sold the plot and insinuating that the auction was still open before later revealing the truth, the defendant clearly misrepresented material facts while encouraging others to enter into contract with him.
Further, both plaintiffs’ earning capacity was materially harmed by the loss of the opportunity to purchase land in this scarce economy. One plaintiff testified that they had concrete plans to create a shopping center in the plot, an opportunity for earning that was thoroughly dashed by the premature cancellation of the auction. To this day, the plaintiff has been unable to secure land for this shopping center, and is likely to be unable to do so for quite some time. Another plaintiff stated that they had to temporarily pause their normal economic operations in order to secure funding to purchase the plot, and while this plaintiff was unable to testify due to unforeseen real-life circumstances, their statements should nonetheless be given heed.
As if that were not enough, the defendant’s behaviour during this whole fiasco showed a gross negligence for the law, and a disregard for public order that the court cannot justifiably leave unpunished. Between dismissive statements like “who cares enough” and “[this is a] completely legal crime”, the plaintiff’s testimony that the defendant’s behaviour was “erratic and unusual” can only be considered an understatement. Despite a formal warning from the Department of Commerce, the plaintiffs who were forced to deal with this erratic, bad-faith, and outrageous conduct in the context of a legally binding auction remain entirely uncompensated. Further, the defendant has been allowed to continue on without any material punishment or detriment for their egregious behaviour outside of what essentially amounts to being told “stop that”. After all of this, the plaintiffs are left “devastated and extremely disappointed” by the severe injustice wrought upon them, and turn to the courts for recourse.
To this end, the plaintiffs humbly request that the courts grant compensatory, consequential, and punitive relief in order to make up for the emotional loss and damage to earning capacity brought by the defendant’s actions, and to punish the defendant for their severe lack of judgement and blatant disregard for their duties to the public. Thank you.
