IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF REDMONT
OPENING STATEMENT
Your Honor,
This document is illegal or null and void in numerous ways.
First, this document is not what my client signed. The contract has been edited, as seen in the first attachment in the Complaint. The Plaintiff has edited it after my client’s signature, and thus is not a legally binding contract.
Even if we say that this document is what my client signed (which is untrue), let’s look at all of the issues with it.
- First up, where is the consideration in this employment contract?
According to the CLF: “Consideration is the price to be paid under a contract. It is what distinguishes a contract from a. Promise. All contracts require former of consideration.” (Errors are not mine and are written into the law.)
What is the consideration that either party gave?
Let’s look at the Plaintiff. He “granted” a 22.5% “share” in Constellation Realty Co. However, that “share” may be taken at any time. That means that this is not consideration as it does not constitute something being paid to the other party as it was “granted” and not “given,” “gifted,” or “paid,” to my client. Something that can be taken at any time by someone else is not owned by you. This means that that “share” in Constellation Realty Co. is owned by BubblyBo (Constellation Co.).
Additionally, that allows a loophole that the Plaintiff can exploit for his own gain. See point 3 for the explanation.
Next, let’s look at the Defendant’s consideration. Their labor. They will work for Constellation Realty Co.
So, the Plaintiff’s “consideration” is that my client is granted fake consideration that can be taken from him. And then my client works for the Plaintiff. For free. Nowhere does it state that my client is paid anything.
There is no consideration, which means there is no contract.
2. Next, let’s look at Section 10 of this document. It states:
“In event of a breach of this Contract, each Co CEO, BaroqueGem65762 and MysticPhunky, must pay a sum of 5,000 in addition to any other fines stipulated in this Contract.”
This states that in the case of ANY breach of this contract, no matter who is at fault for such breach of this contract, only one party must pay the fine. That party is the Co-CEOs, which includes my client, the Defendant. Even if the Plaintiff violates the contract, my client must pay a sum of 5,000.
This clearly violates the Foundations of Contract Law Amendment Act, which in paragraph 4 (Unfair Terms) states:
“There shall exist a legal test to determine unfair terms in standard form contracts.
- Does the term cause a significant imbalance between the contractee's rights and obligations and those of the contractor?
- Is the term reasonably necessary to protect the legitimate interests of the contractor?
- Would the term cause the contractee detriment (financial or non-financial) if the contractor tried to enforce it?
- How transparent is the term?”
If you look at the first bullet point, this contract violates the law quite clearly. No matter who is at fault in the breach of this contract, it is each Co CEO who must pay a sum of 5,000. That includes BaroqueGem65762. If a fine is being demanded from my client, it must also be demanded of BaroqueGem65763. If that does not constitute an imbalance between the rights and obligations between the contractee and the contractor, I do not know what does.
3. How do I know these loopholes I’ve mentioned can be used for the Plaintiff’s own gain? He wrote the contract. A loophole cannot be “created” by someone who did not write the contract.
In Section 9, it states:
“All parties acknowledge that this Contract is comprehensive and designed to prevent the creation of loopholes. Any attempt to exploit, circumvent, or create loopholes in the terms and conditions shall be considered a breach of contract.”
The Plaintiff created a loophole as stated above, and is now attempting to exploit it by including “2. The defendant pay the plaintiff $5,000 for breach of contract that the plaintiff is entitled to in section 10.” In the prayers for relief.
This by itself puts the Plaintiff in breach of contract for creating a loophole and then exploiting it. Those are two ways in which the Plaintiff is in breach of contract right now. However, all circumstances in which a breach of contract occurs (including this one) — you guessed it!
The Defendant has to pay a sum of 5,000 to the Plaintiff. This leads me to my next point.
4. According to precedent set by 2022 FCR 52, any sum that must be paid or awarded to a party that is not specified as to what that sum consists of is to be interpreted as blocks of air. As such, the sums described in Section 4 (Termination and Compensation), Section 5 (Missed Quota Compensation), and Section 10 (Breach Penalty) are to be construed to be sums of blocks of air.
5. Section 3, 4, and 5 have no place whatsoever in an employment contract.
In Section 3, it states that Constellation Realty Co. (Owned by BubblyBo) commits to selling 1 plot of land biweekly. It further states Constellation Co. (Owned by BubblyBo) will take a 25% cut. This is a promise from BubblyBo to BubblyBo.
This has nothing to do with the Employees, BaroqueGem65762 or MysticPhunky.
In Section 4, it states that if the aforementioned biweekly quota is not met (a promised quota made by BubblyBo to himself), BaroqueGem65762 and MysticPhunky must each pay a sum of 10,000 blocks of air to Constellation Co. (BubblyBo).
In Section 5, it states that if Constellation Realty Co. (BubblyBo) fails to meet the biweekly quota, the company (Constellation Realty Co. which is owned by BubblyBo) must pay Constellation Co. (again, owned by BubblyBo) a sum of 3,000 blocks of air.
The Plaintiff is using this section in the prayers for relief to get my client to pay something that he is not bound to do. This is another attempt to create and exploit a loophole. Section 5 is a contract between BubbyBo as CEO of Constellation Realty Co. and BubblyBo as CEO of Constellation Co.
Nowhere does the contract state my client has anything to do with this section.
6. Last but not least, let’s take a look at Section 8. It says my client “may not ‘leave’” their position for 2 months.
Under legal definitions, “may” allows for the option of something. This is illustrated most aptly by the phrase “may or may not.” That means that something has the option of happening or the option of not happening.
In law, there are a few options to look at as options to impose a legal requirement on the recipient of a document.
A. Shall;
B. Will;
C. May; and
D. Must.
The only word established as the legal word to absolutely require something is must. All others do not require anything.
The contract states that my client “may not ‘leave’” his position for two months. It does not state “must not ‘leave’” his position for two months. As such, it allows for the option of leaving his position within the 2 months.
7. Let’s even look at the option in which it does require my client to stay at his position for 2 months. That is illegal due to precedent set by 2023 FCR 87. It states:
Any contract that, “stifles economic mobility and, essentially, requires someone who accepted the contract to continue working even if they do not wish to (involuntarily)” does not meet the legality requirement for a contract and is involuntary servitude which is illegal. My client was not even paid for his work. If it is ruled that my client was not allowed to leave, he is forced to work for two months without any pay by BubblyBo or Constellation Realty Co. That is, by definition indentured servitude.
Let me summarize this for you, your Honor.
My client did not sign this contract. It has been edited and on that basis alone should be thrown out and ruled null and void.
This employment contract does not meet the legal requirements of consideration, legality, or fair terms. Simply within those three areas of contract law, this contract must be thrown out and found to be null and void. So any argument made beyond those points are finding the issues with the contract if it’s allowed to stand, which it should not.
Additionally, the contract states that no loopholes are allowed to be created or exploited and doing so constitutes a breach of this contract. I have shown that the Plaintiff has created loopholes in the contract and has attempted to exploit them. That totals 4 breaches of contract on the side of the Plaintiff already.
The Plaintiff created an agreement between himself and himself under two different companies in Section 3, 4, and 5, and then wants to extract money from my client when he has no justification to do so.
The sums described in Sections 4, 5, and 10 are of blocks of air due to the fact that the contract does not state what the sums consist of. This precedent is set by 2022 FCR 52.
My client was allowed the option to leave his position within Constellation Realty Co. within 2 months.
If he was not allowed to leave his position within 2 months, that is indentured servitude (slavery) and that is illegal.
Your Honor, this contract has so many issues that it cannot be held as legally binding, and even if it is, there are additional problems with the Plaintiff’s interpretation of this contract that there is no way that this can be ruled in favor of the Plaintiff.
DATED: This 13th of January 2024