MrFluffy2U94
Citizen
Judge
Senator
Construction & Transport Department
Redmont Bar Assoc.
Aventura Resident
MrFluffy2U94
judge
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2023
- Messages
- 219
- Thread Author
- #1
- Client Name: Myself, MrFluffy2U94
- Counsel Name: Myself, MrFluffy2U94 ( I am an Attorney)
- Were you originally the plaintiff or the defendant: I was originally the plaintiff in this case.
- Reason for the Appeal: I believe that the decision made in my case was an incorrect decision. There are several other cases as precedent that have accepted a lesser burden of proof as to the "offer" in a contract.
- Additional Information: You honors, I would like to bring to your attention to the case of Dumbyhead1234 v. shadowbox [2023] DCR 7.
If you review the "offer" that was given in this case, you will see that it is a far less clear offer than that presented in my Federal Court case. To which, the judge remarks
"The offer in this case was clear, it specified how much money was to be loaned, how much to be returned, and when the return was due. This criterion of a contract is met."
In this case, the judge considered the entirety of the conversation when determining if a proper offer was formed, as there is no single statement which includes all of the parts of this offer together, however the same was not considered in my case.
If this is to be considered an acceptable offer in Dumbyhead1234 v. shadowbox [2023] DCR 7, I would respectfully request that this court review the facts in MrFluffy2U94 vs. CopTop_YT [2023] FCR 92 to determine if this same level of burden is met, which I believe that the court will find it is greatly exceeded. The defendant from the case actually initiates the offer in my case, as seen here.
I believe that the presiding judge, Dartanman, had too narrow of a vision in regards to when the offer took place. He states "Despite these negotiations, it is not clear that an Offer (as defined by the CLF Act - an "unequivocal statement of terms on which you are prepared to do business" that "cannot be vague or ambiguous.").
I believe that the conversation between myself and the defendant meets the intent of these requirements just as they did in the previous precedent. After the defendant reaches out, I tell the defendant that I am open to offers. I make the unequivocal statement that "I would sell for the right price", he proceeds with an offer of $40,000 and I respond stating that I could accept $46,000, with the terms that nothing in the basement is included, and all my storage items will be removed. See below.
The previous judge took the word "could" to imply that there was "unequivocality". However, any reasonable person can tell that I am simply responding in the same grammatical nuance that the offer was made in. The defendant asks if I "can" take $40K, to which I naturally respond with a counter saying that I "could" take a different sum. In fact, Websters dictionary lists the definition of the word "could" as a verb "used to indicate a strong inclination to do something". Quite the opposite of vague or ambiguous.
Once the hurdle of the offer is cleared, you will see the only CLF criteria missing is acceptance. To which I will provide some insight. There is a clear acceptance of this offer shown below.
You can see here, that the contract is unequivocably accepted by the defendant when they state "Yes, I am ready to buy". Again, that does not sound "vague or ambiguous" to me your honors.
If you consider the remainder of Judge Dartanman's opinion, WITH the correction in regards to the offer, and the proven acceptance, then you will see that ALL of the criteria required for a contract in the CLF are met and that the correct verdict would have been to hold the defendant accountable to the terms of the legally binding contract.
Your honors, I humbly ask that you review the facts at hand, along with the previous precedent that has been presented to determine whether or not the criteria for an offer and acceptance is met and help correct this verdict that was given contrary to the previously established precedent.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
- Counsel Name: Myself, MrFluffy2U94 ( I am an Attorney)
- Were you originally the plaintiff or the defendant: I was originally the plaintiff in this case.
- Reason for the Appeal: I believe that the decision made in my case was an incorrect decision. There are several other cases as precedent that have accepted a lesser burden of proof as to the "offer" in a contract.
- Additional Information: You honors, I would like to bring to your attention to the case of Dumbyhead1234 v. shadowbox [2023] DCR 7.
If you review the "offer" that was given in this case, you will see that it is a far less clear offer than that presented in my Federal Court case. To which, the judge remarks
"The offer in this case was clear, it specified how much money was to be loaned, how much to be returned, and when the return was due. This criterion of a contract is met."
In this case, the judge considered the entirety of the conversation when determining if a proper offer was formed, as there is no single statement which includes all of the parts of this offer together, however the same was not considered in my case.
If this is to be considered an acceptable offer in Dumbyhead1234 v. shadowbox [2023] DCR 7, I would respectfully request that this court review the facts in MrFluffy2U94 vs. CopTop_YT [2023] FCR 92 to determine if this same level of burden is met, which I believe that the court will find it is greatly exceeded. The defendant from the case actually initiates the offer in my case, as seen here.
I believe that the presiding judge, Dartanman, had too narrow of a vision in regards to when the offer took place. He states "Despite these negotiations, it is not clear that an Offer (as defined by the CLF Act - an "unequivocal statement of terms on which you are prepared to do business" that "cannot be vague or ambiguous.").
I believe that the conversation between myself and the defendant meets the intent of these requirements just as they did in the previous precedent. After the defendant reaches out, I tell the defendant that I am open to offers. I make the unequivocal statement that "I would sell for the right price", he proceeds with an offer of $40,000 and I respond stating that I could accept $46,000, with the terms that nothing in the basement is included, and all my storage items will be removed. See below.
The previous judge took the word "could" to imply that there was "unequivocality". However, any reasonable person can tell that I am simply responding in the same grammatical nuance that the offer was made in. The defendant asks if I "can" take $40K, to which I naturally respond with a counter saying that I "could" take a different sum. In fact, Websters dictionary lists the definition of the word "could" as a verb "used to indicate a strong inclination to do something". Quite the opposite of vague or ambiguous.
Once the hurdle of the offer is cleared, you will see the only CLF criteria missing is acceptance. To which I will provide some insight. There is a clear acceptance of this offer shown below.
You can see here, that the contract is unequivocably accepted by the defendant when they state "Yes, I am ready to buy". Again, that does not sound "vague or ambiguous" to me your honors.
If you consider the remainder of Judge Dartanman's opinion, WITH the correction in regards to the offer, and the proven acceptance, then you will see that ALL of the criteria required for a contract in the CLF are met and that the correct verdict would have been to hold the defendant accountable to the terms of the legally binding contract.
Your honors, I humbly ask that you review the facts at hand, along with the previous precedent that has been presented to determine whether or not the criteria for an offer and acceptance is met and help correct this verdict that was given contrary to the previously established precedent.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
