In re Contract Act 2020 SDSC 6
In re Contract Act 2020 SDSC 6
| Date of judgment | 3rd February 2020 |
|---|---|
| Justices | Chief Justice SlimmyJimmyGrimmy Justice Danyo |
| Held | The Contract Act is constitutional and consistent with the right to privacy and the right to liberty and security of the person |
| Ruling | 2-0 |
| Applicable precedent |
MAJORITY OPINION by Chief Justice SlimmyJimmyGrimmy
(with Justice Danyo agreeing)
[1]. The petitioner filed for a Judicial Review for the Contract Act, saying it infringed on Article 11, Section 4 of the constitution.
[2]. The petitioner believed that the inclusion of a third party, in this case a judge, infringes on attorneys’ constitutionally given ability to “create and review legally binding contracts”.
The Petitioner
[3]. The petitioner argued that the inclusion of an approving body when creating contracts is irrelevant. The Supreme Court respectfully disagrees with that argument, as the consent of an approving body helps ensure that a party is not being subjected to a contract that breaks the law of SimDemocracy.
[4]. The petitioner argued that the inclusion of an approving body when creating contracts is an invasion of privacy. The Supreme Court disagrees with this argument, as the judiciary would need knowledge of a contract’s existence in order to legally enforce it.
[5]. The petitioner argued that an external party has no constitutional grounds to be able to approve contracts. The Supreme Court disagrees with this interpretation, as the section of the constitution does not specifically state whether or not the judiciary can be a party when making a contract, so the judiciary's involvement and procedures can be defined by law, as long as attorneys can ultimately create and review contracts without unfair disapproval by an approving body.
The Respondent
[6]. The Supreme Court agrees that fair restrictions need to be put in place in order to protect any parties from an unlawful contract.
In conclusion
[7]. In conclusion, the Supreme Court sees no reason how an approving body in contractional creation and review violates the people’s privacy, nor does the Supreme Court see a reason why an approving body is irrelevant to making and reviewing legally binding contracts.
[8]. Therefore, The Contract Act, through majority opinion in the Supreme Court is to be considered constitutional and legally valid.
MAJORITY OPINION by Justice Danyo
(with Chief Justice SlimmyJimmyGrimmy agreeing)
[9]. I agree with Chief Justice Slimmy’s opinion. I would like to personally add a point in regards to the petitioner’s arguments regarding a claim under Article 27, liberty and security of the person. The petitioner attempted to claim that as an attorney may do something under the constitution, by extension they had a right to do that thing, and by extension, they had a liberty to do that thing. As the state regulates this thing, it amounted to an unconstitutional violation of Article 27\. This court wholly disagrees with this claim. It’s very important we view things with the lens of context in mind. Article 27 deals with the lawful arrest, detention, and administration of punishment of people. The Article itself is very clear, with s2 enumerating what constitutes due process and s3 containing a provision prohibiting criminal repercussions merely on the basis of failure to fulfil a contractual duty. We think it would be extremely unwise and inappropriate to vastly expand the definition of “liberty” in this context. As such, Article 27 is completely irrelevant and this review falls outside of its ambit.
