Lawsuit: Adjourned Reppal v. EcoFinance [2024] FCR 77

Status
Not open for further replies.
Overruled. I need to see the evidence. While I agree that they should do better next time, I don't believe they are at fault for the link not working now.
 
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION FOR RELIEF​


First, I would like to thank the court for its decision to reopen this case.

Your Honor, this procedure is a bit extraordinary, so please forgive me for filing a motion that does not exist within Redmont Courts’ Motions Guide. I have not found any Redmont law or court procedure written to help resolve this. I’m sure this will raise an objection from opposing counsel; however, I ask that the court hear me out.

I would like to explain the Plaintiff’s predicament to the court.

The link in question was the only evidence I had to show the unedited contract in its original form. This link was functional when the complaint was submitted to this court.

I would like to bring the court’s attention to the fact that neither of the two presiding judges nor opposing counsel raised any issues with the link. Both RelaxedGV and SumoMC had the opportunity to examine Exhibit A, and neither stated that they found fault with the link. Even if we assume that presiding judges might not look at the evidence until the last minute, which should not be the case, opposing counsel did not mention this issue at all. If the crucial piece of evidence that the Plaintiff relied on to make their argument did not exist, Defendant’s counsel would have been the first to tear it to pieces. Especially given the fact that this is Alexander Love, a sharp attorney with a long history of an eye for detail. Instead, his argument focused on the lack of damages, not the lack of evidence.

The core issue here is that the court effectively lost the evidence provided. The timing of the presiding judge’s review of the evidence or the expiration of the link is entirely beyond the control of either party in the case. The evidence was submitted but was not reviewed in a timely manner to be utilized in the verdict.

Under American and British law (both of which influence Redmont’s legal system), courts are permitted to infer in favor of the Plaintiff regarding the contents of lost evidence. I have not found any specific Redmont law addressing this unique situation.

Therefore, I am requesting that the court give inference in favor of the Plaintiff about the contents of the lost evidence. This request is reasonable considering that the Defendant’s counsel did not dispute the link’s validity, thereby implicitly accepting that it was proof of the original, unedited version of the contract, supporting the arguments laid out in the Plaintiff’s Complaint, Opening Statements, and Closing Statements.

With this in mind, I respectfully request relief from the court.
 
Admin23 said:
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION FOR RELIEF​


First, I would like to thank the court for its decision to reopen this case.

Your Honor, this procedure is a bit extraordinary, so please forgive me for filing a motion that does not exist within Redmont Courts’ Motions Guide. I have not found any Redmont law or court procedure written to help resolve this. I’m sure this will raise an objection from opposing counsel; however, I ask that the court hear me out.

I would like to explain the Plaintiff’s predicament to the court.

The link in question was the only evidence I had to show the unedited contract in its original form. This link was functional when the complaint was submitted to this court.

I would like to bring the court’s attention to the fact that neither of the two presiding judges nor opposing counsel raised any issues with the link. Both RelaxedGV and SumoMC had the opportunity to examine Exhibit A, and neither stated that they found fault with the link. Even if we assume that presiding judges might not look at the evidence until the last minute, which should not be the case, opposing counsel did not mention this issue at all. If the crucial piece of evidence that the Plaintiff relied on to make their argument did not exist, Defendant’s counsel would have been the first to tear it to pieces. Especially given the fact that this is Alexander Love, a sharp attorney with a long history of an eye for detail. Instead, his argument focused on the lack of damages, not the lack of evidence.

The core issue here is that the court effectively lost the evidence provided. The timing of the presiding judge’s review of the evidence or the expiration of the link is entirely beyond the control of either party in the case. The evidence was submitted but was not reviewed in a timely manner to be utilized in the verdict.

Under American and British law (both of which influence Redmont’s legal system), courts are permitted to infer in favor of the Plaintiff regarding the contents of lost evidence. I have not found any specific Redmont law addressing this unique situation.

Therefore, I am requesting that the court give inference in favor of the Plaintiff about the contents of the lost evidence. This request is reasonable considering that the Defendant’s counsel did not dispute the link’s validity, thereby implicitly accepting that it was proof of the original, unedited version of the contract, supporting the arguments laid out in the Plaintiff’s Complaint, Opening Statements, and Closing Statements.

With this in mind, I respectfully request relief from the court.
Click to expand...
Objection, your honor. Breach of procedure. The plaintiff has failed to cooperate with an order to reproduce the evidence, and is instead making an illegal motion. He blames the loss of evidence on the Court when in fact the plaintiff failed to keep accurate records. I move to strike this motion from the record and to strike exhibit A from the evidence.
 
Admin23 said:
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION FOR RELIEF​


First, I would like to thank the court for its decision to reopen this case.

Your Honor, this procedure is a bit extraordinary, so please forgive me for filing a motion that does not exist within Redmont Courts’ Motions Guide. I have not found any Redmont law or court procedure written to help resolve this. I’m sure this will raise an objection from opposing counsel; however, I ask that the court hear me out.

I would like to explain the Plaintiff’s predicament to the court.

The link in question was the only evidence I had to show the unedited contract in its original form. This link was functional when the complaint was submitted to this court.

I would like to bring the court’s attention to the fact that neither of the two presiding judges nor opposing counsel raised any issues with the link. Both RelaxedGV and SumoMC had the opportunity to examine Exhibit A, and neither stated that they found fault with the link. Even if we assume that presiding judges might not look at the evidence until the last minute, which should not be the case, opposing counsel did not mention this issue at all. If the crucial piece of evidence that the Plaintiff relied on to make their argument did not exist, Defendant’s counsel would have been the first to tear it to pieces. Especially given the fact that this is Alexander Love, a sharp attorney with a long history of an eye for detail. Instead, his argument focused on the lack of damages, not the lack of evidence.

The core issue here is that the court effectively lost the evidence provided. The timing of the presiding judge’s review of the evidence or the expiration of the link is entirely beyond the control of either party in the case. The evidence was submitted but was not reviewed in a timely manner to be utilized in the verdict.

Under American and British law (both of which influence Redmont’s legal system), courts are permitted to infer in favor of the Plaintiff regarding the contents of lost evidence. I have not found any specific Redmont law addressing this unique situation.

Therefore, I am requesting that the court give inference in favor of the Plaintiff about the contents of the lost evidence. This request is reasonable considering that the Defendant’s counsel did not dispute the link’s validity, thereby implicitly accepting that it was proof of the original, unedited version of the contract, supporting the arguments laid out in the Plaintiff’s Complaint, Opening Statements, and Closing Statements.

With this in mind, I respectfully request relief from the court.
Click to expand...

Overruled. The duty to protect evidence lies with the party submitting it. Responsibility for the link not working cannot be placed on the previous presiding officers or the defense. When you submit evidence to the court, you must ensure it works correctly and will continue to do so. I will allow you to provide a fixed link, but if you fail to do so, I will not be able to consider that piece of evidence in this ruling.

Additionally, please clarify if this submission serves as your second closing statement or if you will be posting that separately.
 
Alexander P. Love said:
Objection, your honor. Breach of procedure. The plaintiff has failed to cooperate with an order to reproduce the evidence, and is instead making an illegal motion. He blames the loss of evidence on the Court when in fact the plaintiff failed to keep accurate records. I move to strike this motion from the record and to strike exhibit A from the evidence.
Click to expand...
Overruled. While the motion is not listed in the guide, I will allow it. Regarding the order to reproduce, I will give the plaintiff 24 hours to comply, or it will be struck.
 
I want to state for the record that the Exhibit A video has been recovered and sent to the presiding judge. He is reviewing it.
 
After speaking with both parties in my chambers, the evidence has been located. @Admin23, please submit the video evidence to the court within 24 hours here. Once this is submitted, Mr. Love will have 72 hours to submit a closing statement.
 
Unseatedduke1 said:
After speaking with both parties in my chambers, the evidence has been located. @Admin23, please submit the video evidence to the court within 24 hours here. Once this is submitted, Mr. Love will have 72 hours to submit a closing statement.
Click to expand...
I have uploaded the video to YouTube. If there are any issues with the link or if you are unable to view it, please let me know as soon as possible.


EXHIBIT A
 
Your Honor, we are sitting at 12 hours past the deadline for opposing counsel to post his closing statement. Opposing counsel has managed to miss every deadline this court has set. This is a disrespect to the court and a waste of time for everyone involved, I ask the court carry on with a verdict without the Defense’s closing statement.
 
The defense reiterates its points from the original closing statement. We apologize for the tardiness, the last two days have been full of work.
 
Court is in recess pending verdict.
 

Verdict


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
VERDICT

Reppal v. EcoFinance [2024] FCR 77

I. PLAINTIFF'S POSITION
1. The Plaintiff, contends that EcoFinance breached the Boeing Mile credit card contract by engaging in unauthorized modifications and subsequent cancellation.

II. DEFENDANT'S POSITION
1. EcoFinance contends that it had the right to modify the contract as necessary for operational reasons.

2. EcoFinance asserts that the contract was not violated but that there was a simple and easily rectified misunderstanding. The defendant maintains that the contract could not be voided as argued by the Plaintiff, and even if modifications and termination occurred, the contract remained valid throughout the process.


III. THE COURT OPINION

  1. This ruling is based on the information presented by the parties and matters commonly known to the public.
  2. The Plaintiff and Defendant did indeed enter into a legally binding contract that met all legal standards as outlined in the Contracts Act. The evidence clearly shows that the Defendant made edits to the contract after it was signed and agreed upon by both parties. Modifying a contract after its signing requires the consent of both parties to be legally binding. Therefore, the addition made to the contract was not legally enforceable.
  3. The Defendant's act of editing the contract and subsequently attempting to use this non-legally binding edit to terminate the contract constitutes bad faith and results in a material breach of contract. As a result, the contract is rendered null and void, and the Defendant is liable for damages.
  4. In summary, the Defendant and Plaintiff entered into a legally binding agreement. The Defendant then edited the contract and sought to terminate it using the edited portion in bad faith, thereby breaching the contract. The breach of contract was significant enough to undermine the fundamental purpose of the contract.
  5. Regarding damages, the Defendant failed to mitigate damages and instead continued to cancel the contract and attempt to move forward. The Defendant's conduct was outrageous; attempting to modify a contract after it was agreed upon and then using that modified contract to justify actions is unacceptable and outrageous.
  6. Based on the balance of probabilities, it is highly likely that the Defendant edited the contract with the intention of obtaining the ability to cancel it.

IV. DECISION
In the matter of FCR 77, I rule in favor of the Plaintiff with a modified prayer for relief.
  1. The contract established between the two entities is deemed null and void.
  2. The Plaintiff shall recover $20,000 in compensatory damages for the loss of credit card benefits.
  3. The Plaintiff shall recover $50,000 in punitive damages. The conduct of the defendant was outrageous as they edited the contract in an attempt to deceive the other party and evade their contractual obligations.
  4. 30% in legal fees ($21,000) will be awarded to Admin23 for their work in the case.

The Federal Court thanks all involved.

 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top