Lawsuit: Adjourned dygyee v. Credit Resource [2022] SCR 1

[Milkcrack]

Sorry, your honour, I had to prepare for a test. Can I get a 24-hour extension?

 

[Wuutie]

Extension granted

 

[Milkcrack]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Closing Statement:
I would like to start off by saying that because Beray20 donated part of the money he received from the contract between him and Dygee to credit-resource does not mean, this is by any means a transfer of contractual obligations. The Contract Law Foundation Act is clear;

Section 8 - Acceptens. Paragraph 3.
(3) The two main parts of acceptance is it must match the offer “mirror image rule” ( states that an offer must be accepted exactly with no modifications. The offeror is the master of their own offer ) and it must be communicated.

No contract can be partially agreed to. There is no way someone can be partially liable for a contract. There is only 1 question to be asked Did Credit-Resource Agree with the contract yes or no? There is no middle ground.


Did the CEO agree with the Contract?
No, as I stated many times already. Rylint never agreed to any terms in the contract nor was he aware of the contract between Beray20 and dygyee when it was created.

The only evidence the plaintiff has is an excerpt of the conversation in the ticket

Spoiler: Excerpt

However if anything, this shows that the CEO was not aware of a contract between Dygee and Beray20. Rylint was under the assumption that Dygee already unofficially paid Beray20 and that order still needed to be made to officialize it. He was not aware of any contract.


Did Beray20 have the authority to agree on behalf of credit-resource?
No, Beray20 was just an employee of the company with no special privileges or authority to go into a contract. The same way a Doctor can not agree to a contract with someone on behalf of the Department of Health Beray20 was not authorized to make a contract. The only mention to Credit-Resource ever in the contract most likely was "Your company will receive". However, Beray20 did not agree on behalf of Credit-Resource nor did he claim he would at the time. The contract clearly says that
"If YOU fail to comply to any of the terms in this contract YOU will owe Dygee the original 25k plus and additional 15k added on." as well as "I Beray20 agree to the terms in this contract.
"You are responsible for the actions of the members of your company".
The Plaintiff clearly only held Beray20 personally liable. If Beray20 was the one with money and Credit-Resource was bankrupt. It is clear that Dygee would argue the contract wasn't between Credit-Resource and him but between Beray20 and him and he would be right. It is one way or the other, you can not choose to interpret the law whichever way you like which results in you getting the most money.

In conclusion, there is no way the CEO agreed to the contract nor was Beray20 was authorized to do so there is no way shape or form that Credit-Resource agreed to the contract. Beray20 is liable for the contract, which is made very clear in the contract and not Credit-Resource.

 

[Wuutie]

Thank you both, The Supreme Court will now take some time to come to a verdict.

 

[End]

Verdict

I. PLAINTIFF’S POSITION
1. The Plaintiff, Dygyee, claims that Defendant scammed them, therefore the Defendant is indebted to the Plaintiff an amount of $40,000.
2. The Plaintiff claims that they entered into a contract with the Defendant for the purpose of a building commission.
3. The Plaintiff claims that Beray20 formed a contract as an agent of the Defendant.

II. DEFENDANTS POSITION
1. The Defendant, Credit Resource, claims that Beray20 was not an authorised agent of the Defendant.
2. The Defendant claims that the contract evidenced by the Defendant holds Beray20 personally liable.
3. The Defendant claims that the Defendant did not enter into a contract with the Plaintiff.

III. THE COURT OPINION
1. The Supreme Court notes the decision of Beray20 v. Rylint [2021] FCR 118:

Based on the known facts of the case, the offeree is not party to the building contract. It is the court's opinion that the offeror was under the false pretence that they were an agent of the organisation in forming contract. Evidence shows that appropriate channels existed and this contract was initially formed outside of these channels, without the organisation's knowledge.

2. The Supreme Court notes the legal test for contract formation. For a contract to be legally enforceable, the contract must meet the following seven components outlined in the Foundation of Contract Law Act:

Offer;
Acceptance;
Consideration;
Capacity;
Legality;
Legal intent; and
Format

3. It is the opinion of a majority of the Supreme Court (2-1) that there was no legally enforceable contract formed between the Plaintiff and the Defendant. The second attempt at contract formation is ambiguous and the terms are vague.

Remarks from Chief Justice xEndeavour

The Plaintiff has failed to prove that they have established a contract with the Defendant. There was a contract established between Dygyee and Beray20 for the purposes of a building commission, as established in Beray20 v. Rylint. The Plaintiff has failed to prove that Beray20 was an agent of the Defendant who had the capacity to enter into legal relations on behalf of the company, as it was established in Beray20 v. Rylint.

I am not satisfied that the appropriate steps in contract formation took place between the Plaintiff and the Defendant. Specifically, there were no clear terms and no consideration was moved between the parties. Furthermore, the contract is not valid as the person entering into the contract on behalf of the Defendant did not have the correct authority/capacity to do so. For example, a company cannot be tied into a contract whereby an employee without the correct authority/capacity has agreed to purchase $100,000 of goods from a retailer.

While I note that the company said it would finish the build, this was a promise, not a legally binding agreement as no contract was formed. The money transferred between Beray20 and the Defendant is not of concern in this case. The Plaintiff paid Beray20, not Credit Resource. The Plaintiff does not become party to any agreements that Beray20 made with the Defendant on the basis that Beray20 used funds that the Plaintiff may have paid them. These agreements between Beray20 and the Defendant are what I would describe as a sub-contract.

The Plaintiff has failed to prove that Beray20 was under duress, as inferred in the Plaintiff's arguments. As the Federal Court noted in Beray20 v. Rylint, the money paid to the Defendant by Beray20 was what appeared to be a 'failed bribe'.

I cannot determine a legally binding contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant that supports the Plaintiff's case. I find in favour of the Defence.
Therefore, I believe that the contract was between Mr. Dygyee and Mr. Beray20 and solely between these two parties. Mr. Beray20 is solely responsible for their part of the contract, and Credit Resource was in no way obligated to complete anything from Mr. Beray20's contract.

Ruling: In favour of the Defendant

Remarks from Justice JoeGamer

I am of the opinion that the initial contract between Mr. Dygyee and Mr. Beray20 was only between these two parties and the company Credit Resource was not involved in the contract. The contract is clear in its language; Mr. Beray20 was solely liable for this contract. The contract was signed with the pen strokes of Mr. Beray20 not an official at Credit Resource, the failure to comply clause was not against Credit Resource but Mr. Beray20, and from the evidence presented, PerfectedRylint was not aware of the contract made by Mr. Beray20. Mr. Beray20 had no authority to make a contract with the company he worked. No company official gave Mr. Beray20 the authority to make a contract involving the company; Mr. Beray20 was simply an employee, and that employee didn’t have the power to create a contract in the name of the company. The contract is very clearly between Mr. Dygyee and Mr. Beray20, not Credit Resource.

Now, I don’t know how Credit Resource operates fully, however, from what I’ve seen in this case, it would appear that Credit Resource supplies builders materials and labors in exchange for a portion made by the contractee. It would appear that Credit Resource is a contractor, not a building company. First, the fact that Mr. Beray20 was using company resources to build this apartment does not make the contract with Credit Resource, nor does give Mr. Beray20 the authority to sign contracts on behalf of Credit Resource. Second, what a contractee does with funds made/awarded from a contract does not transfer the ownership of the contract. What we saw from this case was Mr. Beray20 was paid in accordance with the contract, and then he used the funds made from said contract to pay his employer their share for supplying materials and laborers and used the rest as an attempt to secure a managerial position at Credit Resource. What the contractee does with his money is outside of the contractor's power to control in accordance with this contract. A contract made with a person does not transfer ownership when funds from the contract are transferred. That is not how contracts work. This contract was formed soley with Mr. Beray20, and no one else.

Therefore, I believe that the contract was between Mr. Dygyee and Mr. Beray20 and solely between these two parties. Mr. Beray20 is solely responsible for their part of the contract, and Credit Resource was in no way obligated to complete anything from Mr. Beray20's contract.

Ruling: In favour of the Defendant

Remarks from Justice Wuutie

This situation was unique in DemocracyCraft and is not in any laws or rules or insufficient in the current contract law. This is why I will put my own corporate law expertise in place in this matter. I will breakdown first the situation before coming to a conclusion so there is no misunderstanding. What we saw in the screenshots was that beray20 acted as an agent for Credit Resource. He put the name of Credit Resource under the contract as well. Then Beray20 and Credit Resource made a deal on bringing the client in. So there is no legal basis that dygyee had legal connections to beray20 at the time. As agent you are most of the time protected from any complaints unless of a big mistake. This is a prime example of it. Dygyee would not and cannot take any legal action against beray20 because he has no legal connections in a contract. The person liable for the damages is Credit Resource. This was the other party on the contract and even though beray20 went out of his duties he can’t be put liable fort he damages directly to dygyee. This is called sham representation, acting like he has authority when he does not have any. Credit Resource has a legal connection in a contract and beray20 as employee so they can put beray20 liable for all the damages to the company. This is because he commited sham representation. More simplistic: Dygyee – Credit Resource, Credit Resource – Beray20. What needs to happen: Dygyee -> Credit Resource (with beray20 as agent), Credit Resource -> beray20. This is the only correct way in the corporate law.

Government is not a company and cannot be done the same way with employees. Like the army: a soldier cant connect the government with another person without the authority. This was also not the case if beray20 was not an employee of Credit Resource. Then the contract is announced “null void”. My other colleagues does not agree with the corporate law way but I wanted to put this out that I don’t agree with the situation. The Client of a company is always protected by the law if we don’t have that, then we made a big mistake. A bill about this situations as well needs to come fast. An employee is protected but clients are not protected from scamming companies and this is something scary to look forward to.

Therefore, I believe that the contract was between Mr. Dygyee and Mr. Beray20 and solely between these two parties. Mr. Beray20 is solely responsible for their part of the contract, and Credit Resource was in no way obligated to complete anything from Mr. Beray20's contract.

Ruling: In favour of the Plaintiff

IV. DECISION
1. The Supreme Court hereby rules in favour of the Defendant (2-1), upholding the decision of the Federal Court in Beray20 v. Rylint [2021] FCR 118.
2. The Supreme Court hereby orders that the Plaintiff pays the Defendant $3000 in legal fees.