Lawsuit: Adjourned The Lovely Law Firm v. babysoga [2023] FCR 87

Status
Not open for further replies.
Your honor I will sue the entirety of courts
 
Babysoga4real said:
Your honor I will sue the entirety of courts
Click to expand...
You are being extremely disrespectful and disrupting court proceedings. The Federal Court hereby charged BabySoga with Contempt of Court, for the fifth time, and orders the Department of Justice to fine them $2500 more and jail them for 10 more minutes.
 
Babysoga4real said:
I will sue the court entety
Click to expand...
You are being extremely disrespectful and disrupting court proceedings. The Federal Court hereby charged BabySoga with Contempt of Court, for the sixth time, and orders the Department of Justice to fine them $2500 more and jail them for 10 more minutes.
 
Babysoga4real said:
Fack ya
Click to expand...
You are being extremely disrespectful and disrupting court proceedings. The Federal Court hereby charged BabySoga with Contempt of Court, for the seventh time, and orders the Department of Justice to fine them $2500 more and jail them for 10 more minutes.
 
So your fack what we at I am no accountants
 
Babysoga4real said:
So your fack what we at I am no accountants
Click to expand...
You are being extremely disrespectful and disrupting court proceedings. The Federal Court hereby charged BabySoga with Contempt of Court, for the eighth time, and orders the Department of Justice to fine them $2500 more and jail them for 10 more minutes.
 
Your honor I am very sorry as one of my siblings took my phone and wrote these filthy messages
 
Babysoga4real said:
Your honor I am very sorry as one of my siblings took my phone and wrote these filthy messages
Click to expand...
It is your responsibility to guard your account. The charges stand.

EDIT: Unless [USERGROUP=9]@Staff[/USERGROUP] say otherwise.
 

Verdict


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
VERDICT
The Lovely Law Firm v. babysoga [2023] FCR 87

I. PLAINTIFF'S POSITION
1. The Defendant signed a contract which included a non-compete clause, which said, “During the term of this agreement and for two weeks thereafter, the employee shall not engage, directly or indirectly, as an employee, officer, manager, partner, associate, paralegal, or owner of any law firm in competition with the employer or any of its subsidiaries.”
2. According to the contract, the Plaintiff is entitled to legal fees.
3. According to the contract, the Plaintiff is entitled to a $10,000 “extra breach fee”
4. This is because the Defendant simultaneously worked at Redmont Law and Lovely Law – disobeying the non-compete clause of the contract.

II. DEFENDANT'S POSITION
1. The Defendant answered the complaint with some defenses, but ultimately agreed to all the facts.

III. COURT OPINION
1. The Defendant has said they did all of the alleged actions, so the only question that remains is whether this contract (and particularly, the non-compete clause) is enforceable.
2. According to the Contract Law Foundation Act, and numerous cases creating precedent, the following must be present for a contract to be valid: Offer, Acceptance, Consideration, Capacity, Legality, and Legal Intent.
3. An Offer is clear in Evidence A, as is Acceptance.
4. Capacity is probable as Blaze is in some way employed by Lovely Law and there is no evidence he is unable to enter Lovely Law into a contract.
5. Consideration is evident as this is a job offer – where the Offeror will pay the Offeree to do work.
6. Legal Intent is probable as there is no evidence that this is a joke and it appears Lovely Law intended to have BabySoga work for them as a lawyer.
7. Legality remains – was this contract (particularly the non-compete clause) legal?
8. The Miscellaneous Offenses Act defines “Enslavement” as “the act of subjecting an individual to slavery, in all cases, or involuntary servitude, unless as a punishment for crime.”
9. While Lovely Law Firm does have a legitimate interest in preventing its employees from working at another law firm simultaneously, it is beyond the scope of this interest to prevent former employees from working at another law firm. Furthermore, it stifles economic mobility and, essentially, requires someone who accepted the contract to continue working even if they do not wish to (involuntarily).
10. Thus, the Federal Court declares that the provision of the non-compete clause saying that the Offeree cannot be employed by a competitor for two weeks thereafter, does not meet the standard of “Legality,” however according to the the Modification and Severability clause, the rest of the contract (including the rest of the non-compete clause) still applies.
11. The “Extra Breach Fee” is defined in the contract to only apply when the Offeree breaches the “Confidentiality” section.

IV. VERDICT
The Federal Court hereby rules in favor of the Plaintiff, and grants a modified Prayer for Relief.

The Federal Court orders the Department of Justice to fine BabySoga $1000 in legal fees and unfine the Plaintiff the same amount.

The Federal Court thanks all involved.

 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top