VIP Club Members v State of SimDemocracy 2020 Civ 5
VIP Club Members v State of SimDemocracy 2020 Civ 5
| Date of judgment | 27th September 2020 |
|---|---|
| Judge | Justice Ivy Cactus |
| Grounds | Tort of Civil Fraud (Common Law) |
| Verdict | D held liable for Civil Fraud |
| Result | D has to pay 13k Tau to every plaintiff |
| Applicable persuasive precedent | Civil fraud is maliciously or negligently deceiving or misrepresenting a product to a customer, 2.4 A person does not have to enter into an agreement or written contract to pursue a claim under civil fraud, 2.4 |
==
JUDGMENT by Justice Ivy Cactus
Civil Fraud Under Common Law
[1]. Before moving forward with this case, the Court wishes to independently review the proposed tort and its definition. This is so we know what to review the evidence against, and so the definition of the new tort isn’t established around the evidence, but instead the evidence is compared against the established tort.
[2]. The Plaintiff came to the court with a proposed common law tort under Article 22 of the Civil Code. They hope to establish the tort of “Civil Fraud” which they hoped to be defined as “When a legal entity deceives or misrepresents a product or service to a customer in hopes of gaining financial rewards.” The court accepts the need for Civil Fraud under common law, but has a few issues with the proposed definition.
2.1 Torts are written not to punish the defendant, but to fairly compensate the plaintiff. For civil fraud there is no reason that the actions should have to be purposefully malicious for Civil Fraud to be committed. Just because the product wasn’t purposefully misrepresented doesn’t mean the Plaintiff wasn’t damaged. There’s clear precedent for torts such as this, like “Withheld Salary”, which includes negligence as well as maliciousness.
2.2 There is no reason to require the gains from Civil Fraud to be strictly financial. It’s just an unnecessary restriction.
2.3 The Plaintiff shouldn’t need to have actually entered an agreement for Civil Fraud to have occurred. The attempt to defraud someone shouldn’t be treated differently because it was unsuccessful.
2.4 Therefore the court defines Civil Fraud as “maliciously or negligently deceiving or misrepresenting a product to a customer. The one being defrauded shan’t have to enter the agreement for Civil Fraud to be pursued.”
Facts of The Case
[3]. The Court recognizes that each plaintiff, Nonce, Stalin, and Hackerman entered an agreement with the state, where in exchange for 10k Tau they would be given a hoisted Discord role, Private chat, and a Chat to communicate with members of the cabinet.
[4]. The Court recognizes that over the course of 3 weeks the discord role was moved under all government roles by a senate resolution, and then removed by the executive, the VIP-cabinet chat was deleted by the executive because the president believed it to be bribery, and the VIP-private chat was made public.
Argumentation - No Refunds
[5]. The Defendant Argues that because the announcement post of the VIP program stated that no refunds would be allowed, the buyers knew what they were getting in for, and have no right to being reimbursed.
[6]. However, the circumstances of the requested refund when the VIP program was first purchased and at the current state are very different and need to be examined separately.
6.1 The Court recognizes that at the time of the formation of the VIP program there were no refunds allowed for a reason. Refunds in this situation work against the government, as they allow people to gain perks and then pull their payment after already getting the perks. In situations like these it makes perfect sense for no refunds to be allowed, however,
6.2 In this case the agreement was inadvertently voided by the government. You can not protect yourself from contract violations by putting “you are not allowed to compensate yourself if I violate this contact” in it, similarly you can’t protect yourself from Civil Fraud by saying people may not be compensated for violation of the agreement in the agreement.
Argumentation - The State has the Right to Void Debts
[7]. In FakeRealRedditor v State of SimDemocracy 2020 Civ 4 it was established that the government has no obligation to pay contracts if the authority under which a debt has to be repaid. The defendant similarly argues that the state had every right to reduce perks of the VIP role.
7.1 The Court doesn’t believe that Fakereal extends to this case, as the authority that the perks had to be repaid under, that being the executive VIP program, wasn’t removed, repealed, or otherwise disregarded. The state slowly removing perks doesn’t remove their responsibility to fairly compensate people for their Tau.
[8]. The Court would like to reiterate that no member of the executive or the legislative was at fault for removing perks. The state as a whole worked together to make it so that VIP’s weren’t fairly provided for in exchange for their Tau. However, the fact that the state wasn’t acting maliciously doesn’t change the fact that the defendant’s were damaged. Remedies for the Plaintiffs aren’t necessary punishments for the defendants.
Argumentation - Avoiding Bribery
[9]. Finally the Defendant argued that the president, xtremepop, wasn’t at fault for removing the VIP-Cabinet channel because they were trying to avoid bribery. While this may be true it isn’t the responsibility of the buyers of a program to know that the State itself isn’t violating the law, and the fact that one of the perks might have doesn't change the States need to uphold the agreement or properly compensate buyers for removed perks.
Verdict
[10]. The Court finds the State responsible for Civil Fraud, and orders it to pay 13k Tau to all three plaintiffs, as well as any other buyers of the VIP program who come forward in request of compensation.
[11]. Any and all of the Courts decisions may be appealed to the Supreme Court.
