Crista7777 v. IsaacRaymond20

***crista7777 v. IsaacRaymond20*** was the second legal case heard by the Newport City Council and the first case subject to the judicial framework of City Ordinance XXI. Fundamentally, the case considered the nature of contracts and the rights and responsibilities of buyers and sellers in private transactions. Ultimately, *crista7777 v. IsaacRaymond20* was settled out of court after being conducted on June 28, 2020 (Day 4, Year 4 BK) in accordance with the judicial system outlined in City Ordinance XXI. In response to the case, the Council proposed and enacted City Ordinance XXIII on the same day.

On July 13 (-1:4), Emperor lonellamaMV issued Imperial Edict I as a response to the remaining controversies brought about by the unresolved case. The law clarifies the nature of contracts and transactions.

## Background

According to *The Newport Report*, on June 19 (-6:5), IsaacRaymond20 advertised an offer to pay 500 iron ingots for any book enchanted with Mending. Subsequently, crista7777 obtained a Mending book after hours of work. She claimed that she had intended to sell the book to IsaacRaymond20, though she had never notified him of her acceptance of the offer. On June 25 (-4:1), IsaacRaymond20 advertised a revised offer of 320 iron ingots per Mending book.

## Case

On June 28 (-4:4), crista7777 filed a lawsuit against IsaacRaymond20 for "breach of contract and lost opportunity cost due to breach of contract". The defendant pled "not guilty", arguing that no legal contract existed because "acceptance by action is only valid if both parties clearly express acceptance". The plaintiff countered that "acceptance of an offer is done by completion of said task ... not by notification".

The case sparked fierce debate within the Council. Many councilors, such as lostcity99, sided with crista7777: "Contracts do not require explicit acceptance," she testified. "They are tricky and can be entered into at all times." Others, such as ratatoing8990, defended IsaacRaymond20's position: "The fact is that any contract requires explicit acceptance and agreement from both parties," he said. "While [IsaacRaymond20] may be guilty of false advertising, neither party is in any way obligated to pay the other at this point. It would set a very dangerous precedent to go around mandating payment without consent."

In closing, IsaacRaymond20 argued:

I was not made aware of nor did I agree to a contract. My counteroffer was made because [crista7777] said "asking price", which often implies the price isn't fixed. My counteroffer stands. I didn't ask [crista7777] to go find the Mending book, so I shouldn't have to pay for the time it took to find it.
For her closing argument, crista7777 wrote:

The acceptance of an offer is done by completion of said task on my part, not by notification. In fact, notification is not even necessary. A fair customer can observe that 500 iron is a substantial amount. For manual labor time to collect iron or to trade valuable enough products, 500 iron is certifiably substantial. Acceptance only has to be done by the person doing the action. That's why it is called an acceptance of an offer. The defendant's offer was made with serious and confirmable intent with the legal capacity to do so. This makes the offer and acceptance complete upon me going out to find a Mending book in the full expectation of 500 iron. Legally speaking, IsaacRaymond20 owes 500 iron to me. I stand for fairness and justice! Let this case bring marketplace freedom for all unfairly-treated buyers and sellers. As Randi Weingarten once said, "A rich, robust, well resourced nation is the pathway out of poverty and the key to posterity." Thank you, court.
In accordance with City Ordinance XXI, the Council was allowed 72 hours to deliberate a verdict following the closing arguments. Approximately two hours after the arguments were made, the Council ruled in favor of crista7777, as she had received the minimum threshold of six votes in accordance with City Ordinance XVIII. IsaacRaymond20 disputed the verdict, arguing that Ordinance XVIII did not apply. The decision was further confused by the admittance of lonellamaMV as a voting member of the Council during the course of the case; he had cast his vote in favor of the plaintiff. At approximately 11:00 pm CST on June 28 (-4:4), crista7777 and IsaacRaymond20 settled the case out of court before the Council agreed on penalties toward the defendant.