[ICJ] Arab Republic of Egypt v. Storhet Group

[Suvorov]

THE GLOBAL ASSEMBLY ​

INTERNATIONAL COURT REFERRAL INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE​

​ [REFERRAL MEMBER]: Egypt/ Non-Member​ [DATE]: 01/1996​ [THE DEFENDANT]: Storhet Group (“Storhet”)​ [ALLEGED OFFENCES]:​ Breach of Contract (International Law)​ This action is duly brought to this court pursuant to this court’s power to resolve international disputes. At the formation of this contract, no choice of laws clause was included in the contract. Therefore, contract interpretation is potentially divided between the law of the constituent states of the Contract. This court has been granted power to resolve international disputes, inclusive of commercial disputes. See STRÖMBERG V FRENCH SALES INCORPORATED (Demonstrating this court’s power to resolve international commercial disputes).​ This court has the power to create cannons of contractual interpretations necessary to resolve international commercial disputes by virtue of its role in resolving commercial disputes.​ Storhet Group breached its contract with the Arab Republic of Egypt under any reasonable cannon of contract interpretation.​ Breach of Contract (Swedish Contracts Act)​ Storhet Group breached its contract with the Arab Republic of Egypt under Swedish statutory code under the Swedish Contracts Act and Swedish Commonlaw.​ Breach of Contract (Egyptian Civil Code)​ Storhet Group breached its contract with the Arab Republic of Egypt under the Egyptian Civil Code.​ ​ [DATE OF ALLEGED OFFENCES]: October 1, 1995​ [STATEMENT OF EVIDENCE]:​ The case before the court today is a simple one – the plaintiff and defendant signed a short, simple, and easily understood agreement. The agreement was specific in its binding obligations to both parties. The Arab Republic of Egypt was required to transfer an agreed percentage of shares of agreed stocks. In return, Storhet Group was required to transfer an initial payment of funds, followed by monthly installments until the full contract price was reached. Storhet Group failed to make the required installment payments.​ The Arab Republic of Egypt sent requests to Storhet Group seeking compliance with the terms of the agreement and Storhet Group continued to ignore the plain language of the agreement, skirting their contract requirements. By failing to make the agreed upon payments, Storhet has unfairly received the full value of stocks without paying for them, essentially stealing their value from the Arab Republic of Egypt and its people.​ Storhet’s willful disregard of their obligations has denied the Arab Republic of Egypt the value of these stocks, the ability to sell them to other purchasers, and the expected returns on the sale of the stocks. Furthermore, the Arab Republic of Egypt has been denied the opportunity to make vital financial and domestic investments that would have caused the Arab Republic to grow beneficially.​ Storhet’s entire defense to their willful disregard of the plain language of the contract centers around a parole (outside, extrinsic, not included within the document) provision that stated that Storhet wished to purchase these stocks “to allow for stock growth.” Storhet is positioning this contract to mean that Storhet’s payments to the Arab Republic are conditioned on the actual growth of the stocks.​ This provision was not included within the contract signed by both parties, nor was Storhet’s current requirement for payment. Simple ownership of stocks allows for stock growth, without the actual growth in value of the stocks.​ Finally, the provision “to allow for stock growth” is so vague as to be unenforceable at a court of law. All investments are purchased to “allow” for growth. No reasonable purchaser purchases investments with the idea that the investments be barred from growth. It is an intention implied by every purchaser with every investment. Storhet’s statement of this vague idea does not create an additional obligation on behalf of the Arab Republic.​ If Storhet’s statement, “to allow for stock growth” was incorporated into their agreement, the statement is wholly unworkable to be made enforceable and should be disregarded: (1) No period of growth was set by this statement or by Storhet at any time. (2) No percentage of growth was set by this state or by Storhet at any time. (3) No clause for enforcement or payment was provisioned on a set growth. These three factors make it impossible to be enforced at law. How much growth? Over what period? For how long?​ Theoretically, a .000001% upward change would be growth. If the value collapsed the next minute to -30%, Storhet would have been allowed the growth they are claiming their payments to be prefaced by and therefore be made to pay their owed sums. A massive loss in stock value is clearly not the desired outcome of Storhet but would be permissible based on their interpretation of the contract. This interpretation of this contract is foolish, clearly not the intention of the parties, and therefore should be ignored.​ To permit this clause to be binding on the Arab Republic would completely rob the Arab Republic of their ability to recover under this contract and put the Arab Republic at the whim of Storhet. Storhet would be solely positioned to decide how much growth, when, and for how long the growth is required to be sustained for before they pay the Arab Republic. Obligations of parties are to be specifically set so that performance is possible and payment terms are reliable and expected. Storhet’s current position of controlling at a whim its obligations under this contract flies in the face of every cannon of contract law.​ Storhet must be made to pay the Arab Republic the value of this contract, the foreseeable losses the Arab Republic has faced due to Storhet’s actions, and the attorney’s fees that the Arab Republic has been forced to incur to simply be made whole by Storhet’s total, utter, and willful disregard of the plain language of the contract.​ Storhet’s actions cannot be condoned by this court. If it did, all investment based purchased would grind to a halt and every investor would demand-at law-returns on investments. Investments are a risk by their nature and such a carte blanch ruling by this court would destroy international investment.​ TERMS OF THE CONTRACT​ SIGNATURE OF THE DEFENDANT TO THE ABOVE TERMS​ “CONTRACT”​ The State of the Arab Republic of Egypt and the Storhet Group, hereinafter known as "The Parties", agree as follows:​ 1) The Arab Republic of Egypt will transfer, upon signing of the present contract by the Parties, 20% of its stock of Turkish Aerospace Industries (TAI) shares, 20% of its stock of Roketsan shares and 50% of its Aselsan A.S shares to the Storhet Group.​ 2) Storhet Group will transfer upon signature of the present contract by the Parties $2,500,000,000.00 to the Arab Republic of Egypt.​ 3) Storhet Group will transfer further $2,500,000,000.00 to the Arab Republic of Egypt in the month of october 1995, and further $2,500,000,000.00 in the month of november 1995. The total sum transfered from Storhet Group to the Arab Republic of Egypt will total $7,500,000,000.00.​ BREACH OF CONTRACT​ ​ CLAIM I: Prima Facie Breach of Contract; Storhet Group Breached the Contract By Its Own Terms​ 1. Article Three (3) of this contract required Storhet Group to begin transferring funds on a monthly basis, beginning in October of 1995, upon receipt of the agreed upon stocks, outlined in Article One (1) of this contract.​ 2. The Arab Republic of Egypt fully complied with their contractual obligations, outlined in Article One of the contract.​ 3. No other contractual obligations requiring additional performance by either party were included within the contract.​ 4. Storhet Group failed to make any of the agreed upon transfers under this contract.​ 5. Storhet Group breached this contract by its face and by any reasonable interpretation of the contract by failing to perform its obligation under Article Three of the contract.​ CLAIM II: Storhet Group Breached the Contract Inclusive of Parole Provisions Not Included in the Contract​ 1. Storhet Group stated it wished to make stock purchases “to allow for stock growth” ( https://www.modernnations.com/threads/shares-for-sale.10387/post-42184]Swedish Fax to the Arab Republic of Egypt Stating Storhet’s Intentions for Contract[/url]).​ 2. No period of growth for examination was stated in Storhet’s intentions to contract.​ 3. No definition of the amount of growth Storhet’s intentions.​ 4. The only Parole provision predicating this contract outlining Storhet’s intentions was that Storhet’s purchases are premised on being “allowed” to grow.​ 5. These Parole provisions were not included in the contract signed between the Arab Republic of Egypt and Storhet Group.​ 6. Storhet Group was transferred the agreed upon stocks.​ 7. The Arab Republic of Egypt fulfilled all contractual obligations to Storhet, both within the Contract, and inclusive of these Parole (outside, extrinsic, or verbal) provisions because:​ a. Egypt transferred all agreed stock per the written terms of the contract.​ ​ b. By Storhet’s ownership of the stocks, Egypt has complied with Storhet’s parole provision which asked only to “allow” for stock growth.​ ​ c. Storhet is “allowed” to see stock growth on the purchased shares because Storhet owns the stock. Changes in stock price, and any growth in stock value will flow to Storhet and is not “disallowed” in any way.​ 8. Storhet failed to transfer the funds agreed to in Article Three of the contract despite owning the stock and being allowed to see growth in the value of the stocks.​ 9. Storhet breached its contract with the Arab Republic of Egypt by failing the transfer the agreed upon funds outlined in Article Three of this contract.​ ​ CLAIM III: Storhet Breached its Contract with the Arab Republic of Egypt Because It Would Be Destructive to International Commerce to View Otherwise​ 1. Storhet breached its contract with the Arab Republic of Egypt by the plain terms of the contract which required transfer of funds on a monthly basis beginning October 1995 after Egypt transferred the agreed upon stock.​ 2. Storhet breached its contract with the Arab Republic of Egypt even if its Parole provision was included in the contract because Storhet’s Parole provision stated to “allow for stock growth” and simple ownership of stocks permits its owner to allow for growth.​ 3. The Parole Provision “to allow for growth” is wholly vague language, unenforceable by any court and should be disregarded.​ a. First, this court should affirmatively hold that contracts must be interpreted within the written and agreed upon terms unless it is impossible to do so otherwise. Permission of parties to claim terms not agreed to within the contract as enforceable and binding language creates unnecessary confusion and unworkable contracts – such as the present litigation.​ ​ b. Second, this court should require that any provisions to a contract be specific, measured, and reasonably performable by a contracting party so as to allow a reliable performance of contract obligations in return for contracted for value.​ ​ c. Third, this court should hold that vague language is either: (1) Unenforceable and removed from contractual language if the parties cannot agree to an interpretation, or (2) Should be interpreted only by its plain language interpretation​ 4. Storhet did not define “to allow for growth” with any level of enforceability and incorporating this language into the contract would render the contract unconscionable, unfair, and inequitable because it would solely place the conditions of payment with Storhet and leave the Arab Republic with no certainty for recovery.​ a. If the term “to allow for growth” was incorporated it would allow Storhet to define how much growth and for how long the growth would have to be sustained for Storhet to pay the Arab Republic.​ ​ b. Leaving contractual performance conditions completely at the whim of the party that owes the performance is contrary to all contractual law, is clearly not the intention of the Arab Republic at signing, and would be destructive to international commerce to set this precedent.​ DAMAGES​ CLAIM IV: Storhet Group’s Actions Have Denied the Arab Republic their Owed Benefit of the Contract​ 1. Storhet’s failure to make the contracted for payments has caused the Arab Republic to be denied the benefit of the contract.​ 2. The value of the loss of payments owed to Storhet amount to $5,000,000,000.​ CLAIM V: Storhet Group’s Actions Have Denied the Arab Republic of their Ability to Utilize the Value of the Stocks or the Value of the Payments to Make Further Investments​ 1. The Arab Republic’s intentions behind the sale of these stocks was to finance further investments for the nation.​ a. Specifically, the Arab Republic intended to invest in Norwegian bond purchases available at the time the funds were owed, which would have resulted in approximately $2,000,000,000 in profit for the Arab Republic. These bond investments are no longer available, denying the Arab Republic of the ability to profit from this stable investment.​ ​ RELIEF SOUGHT​ 1. Storhet Group is ordered to pay the $5,000,000,000 in payments per the terms of the contract.​ 2. Storhet Group is ordered to pay a reasonable interest amount from both payments of 5% per month beginning on October 1995 for the first payment and November 1995 for the second.​ 3. Storhet Group is ordered to pay additional restitution to the Arab Republic in the amount of $2,000,000,000 to make the Arab Republic whole after Storhet Group’s willful, intentional, and wrongful violation of the terms of the contract.​ 4. As an additional punitive measure, to ensure that Storhet Group and all other international actors abide by the basic rules of contract, Storhet is made to pay a punitive fine of $500,000,000. This amount will cover the Arab Republic’s legal fees, incurred only because of Storhet’s willful disregard of the terms of the contract.​ [THIS IS A STATEMENT OF TRUTH]:​ Sadiki Aswad,​ ​ Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Arab Republic of Egypt,​ Through their attorney:​ 森竜​ Ryū Mori​ ​ Senior Managing Partner,​ Mori Matsumoto & Otsui​ 森・松本・大津井法律事務所 Mori Matsumoto Otsui Hōritsu Jimusho​ ​ [SIGNED BY]: Sadiki Aswad​

 

[Suvorov]

THE GLOBAL ASSEMBLY ​

INTERNATIONAL COURT REFERRAL INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE​

​ [REFERRAL MEMBER]: Egypt/ Non-Member @Naio90​ [DATE]: 02/1996​ [THE DEFENDANT]: Storhet Group (“Storhet”) / Sweden @Connor​ [ALLEGED OFFENCES]: See Complaint​ [DATE OF ALLEGED OFFENCES]: October 1, 1995​ [STATEMENT OF EVIDENCE]:​ ​ SUPPLEMENT TO COMPLAINT​ ​ 1. Date of the complaint should reflect 02/1996 not 01/1996​ ​ 2. Origin of Storhet Group is Sweden​ ​ 3. BREACH OF CONTRACT SUPPLEMENT:​ ​ CLAIM II. (Supplement) Storhet has not paid the agreed values even after seeing the growth in the stock values.​ ​ a. The value of the each stock purchased grown substantially: ASELSAN A.S has grown 50.38%; TURKISH AEROSPACE INDUSTRIES has grown 56.49%; ROKETSAN has grown 1.25%​ ​ b. Storhet has still failed to pay the Arab Republic any of the agreed payments.​ ​ c. Storhet now owns shares worth billions that Storhet has not fully paid for yet has received the benefit of ownership. Storhet has thereby denied this benefit to the Arab Republic.​ [THIS IS A STATEMENT OF TRUTH]:​ ​ Sadiki Aswad,​ ​ Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Arab Republic of Egypt,​ ​ Through their attorney:​ ​ 森竜​ ​ Ryū Mori​ ​ Senior Managing Partner,​ Mori Matsumoto & Otsui​ 森・松本・大津井法律事務所 Mori Matsumoto Otsui Hōritsu Jimusho​ [SIGNED BY]: Sadiki Aswad​

 

[Odinson]

Private
The Chief Justice, Rolfe Olhouser, arrived to the court in his robes and with his infamous gavel. He entered the chamber and took his seat. Associate Justice was informed, by written letter from Chief Justice Olhouser, that he was using his powers as Chief Justice to suspend him from participating in this trial "in order to maintain the reputation and integrity of the court". He assured the Associate Justice that this was not a slight at his own personal reputation or integrity, and said that as a courtesy he would be free to watch the case and would have access to the minutes of what went on during the trial. Taking the Japanese Associate Justice's place, temporarily, was the Vice President of The Supreme Court of The Netherlands, The Honorable Fons Albring. Mister Albring was welcomed into the court by the Chief Justice, given advanced details of the case, and was of course later welcomed to preside as previously discussed.

The court reporter, an aide to the Chief Justice, and the court security were in place. Only the other justices, including the Japanese justice if he wished to attend, and the involved parties (and their legal representation) would be allowed into the chamber. First, of course, nothing could begin until the other two justices entered and took their place.
@Dutchy
@John
@Suvorov

 

[Suvorov]

Associate Justice Mori would inform the court via courier that in order to preserve the sense of justice and fairness of the court, he would not attend the proceedings. He had recused himself from all matters related to this trial and has asked that any clerks, interns, or other staff that serve under him take no part either.

 

[Dutchy]

Vice President Fons Albring of the Dutch Supreme Court, after accepting the request from the Dutch Representative to the Global Assembly to temporarily serve on the International Court of Justice, made his way to the Peace Palace in the Hague. Arriving at the building he made his presence known to the relevant people. Entering the chamber Albring walked up to the Chief Justice and introduced himself, engaging in some formal small talk. Prior to taking his place beside the Chief Justice, Albring went to a private quarter to change in his official attire.

@Odinson @Suvorov @John @Connor

 

[John]

The Associate Justice from America, Stephen Breyer, exited his private quarter in his gown and holding a few files and a notebook between his side and right arm, he stepped up to his seat - greeting the Chief Justice as he did so, engaging in small talk.

@Odinson @Dutchy @Suvorov @Connor

 

[Odinson]

Chief Justice Olhouser welcomed the Dutch justice into the chamber and made sure he felt at home. He also welcomed in his American colleague. However, shortly after Associate Justice Stephen Breyer arrived, Olhouser received a request from Storhet Group to postpone the court case to a later date - there was very good reasoning for this suspension, so Olhouser was inclined to grant it.

The Chief Justice took his seat and cleared his throat, "Storhet Group's legal representation has contacted me and requested that this trial be postponed for some very extenuating circumstances. I am going to grant this postponement. The court reporter will take note of this," he said, before banging his gavel. Olhouser then looked at his two colleagues.
"I'm sorry that you arrived to just go home, this was literally last minute. Judge Albring, the court will ask that you remain on call to serve once we will be reconvened to begin the case. Thank you all for your time."
@Dutchy
@John
@Connor
@Suvorov

 

[Odinson]

Chief Justice Olhouser requested that the Dutch and American justices returned to the chamber, because the case would soon be resuming. A secure message would be sent to the counselors for Egypt and Storhet Group requesting that they arrive to the court as soon as possible. If the counselors arrived before the justices, they would be allowed to wait in a comfortable waiting room outside of the court room.
@Dutchy
@John
@Connor
@Suvorov

 

[Suvorov]

Ryū Mori and his legal team of three other senior partners and five senior associates entered the courtroom and went to their prescribed waiting room. The used a handcart to push in the boxes and boxes of documents and files they had prepared. Everything reprinted seven times, one copy for each judge, one copy to file with the court, one copy for the opposing party, one copy for them, and one copy for any witnesses that might be produced to see and use on the stand. The attorneys would review the documents in the marked, "IMPORTANT CASE FILES" folder. These documents were considered key for the case. They were ready. They had prepped extensively and knew the cases upside down. The only thing left to do was to present it convincingly to the court.
@Dutchy
@John
@Connor
@Odinson

 

[Naio90]

A designated observer from the Arab Republic of Egypt would attend the meeting as part of the Ryu Mori legal team. He would take a seat in the back row and take out his notebook. He was there only to listen and observe.

 

[Dutchy]

Vice President Fons Albring of the Dutch Supreme Court, after accepting the request from the Dutch Representative to the Global Assembly to temporarily serve on the International Court of Justice, made his way to the Peace Palace in the Hague. Arriving at the building he made his way to the private quarters assigned to him in order to change into his official attire. Once changed he proceeded to enter the chamber and walk up to the Chief Justice to greet him once again before taking his place by his side.

@Odinson
@Connor

 

[Connor]

Storhet Group, who has chosen to represent themselves with their own legal team, would enter a consultation room and begin preparing for the case. Naturally, on the way in they would make the court clerk aware of their arrival.

 

[Odinson]

Everyone was now waiting for the American justice to arrive.
@John

The Egyptian representative would be permitted to attend and observe. However, he would be informed that he would not be permitted to speak unless he was called to testify, and he was not permitted to use any kind of electronic device. Besides that, he would be secure in his person and his papers. He would be given a seat in the gallery, which was otherwise empty.
@Naio90

 

[John]

Justice Stephen Breyer arrived back in the chambers, apologising for being late. He took his seat amongst the other justices, placing a file down infront of him. Awaiting proceedings to start.

 

[Odinson]

Olhouser slammed his gavel.
"I hereby call this session of the International Court of Justice to order. The court reporter will record all that is said," he said, looking at the court reporter who was present, to make sure she was typing away.

"This will be a closed sitting, but the record of what is said will be made public after the proceedings have ended. The Arab Republic of Egypt is suing Storhet Group. We will first hear from the legal representation of Egypt.

"I'm sure you're both familiar with how ICJ proceedings work. It's technically left up to the discretion of myself and the other justices, however we do have an unofficial order we like to stick to. I think I'm going to make it more strict this time as we did in our last case. You're all attorneys, but I'll submit it in writing for simplicity's sake," Olhouser said as he took a sip from his Earl Grey tea.

"1. The Plaintiff - the Arab Republic of Egypt - shall give their opening statements and generally present their legal case through their counsel.
2. The Defense - Storhet Group - will give their opening statements as well as their case for the defense.
3. The Plaintiff may then give responding remarks to the Defense's opening statements and case. If they chose not to, they may simply 'rest their case'.
4. The Defense may then make a response to the remarks of the Plaintiff - assuming they chose to make remarks. The Defense may 'rest their case' at this stage as well, of course.
5. Witnesses may be called to testify if necessary, and will be questioned by both sides. The Plaintiff calls witnesses first, if they have any.
6. Myself and the two other justices will act as a panel and question whomever we wish on either side as much as we desire.
7. Finally, the Plaintiff and then the Defense will be offered the opportunity to make closing statements - which should be a summary of their case and what has transpired, and should not include new evidence.

"After this, the justices and I will deliberate, make our verdict, and decide on punishment if there is any punishment to be issued... The Court now recognizes the Plaintiff to make their opening statements, as well as their case."

As promised, the Plaintiff and Defense were both issued a copy of this simple procedure. It was now time for the Egyptian legal team to begin.
@Suvorov
@Naio90
@Connor
@John
@Dutchy

 

[Odinson]

@Suvorov
@Naio90

 

[Suvorov]

Ryū Mori stood and bowed to the courtroom. With him were two demonstrative aids - simple display boards that were constructed so that the judges and each side could see them in the corner of the court room. Ryū looked around, stepped forward, and begun his case-in-chief.

"Honorable Judges, opposing counsel, may it please the court. My name is Ryū Mori and I represent the State of Egypt in this matter.

The case before the court here today is simple: this is your average breach of contract action where one party owed a duty of performance and simply chose not to perform. The remedy is also simple: ensure that the breaching party performs what they agreed to do, and that they pay for the damage that their willful disregard caused.

Now the court has the full details of our case, laid out in our complaint, so I will focus only on the crucial details of the facts and our arguments.

This case began in September of 1995, when Storhet Group responded to an international advertisement for the sale of three stocks: Turkish Aerospace Industries (TAI), Aselsan A.S, and Roketsan. Turkish Aerospace was advertised at $250 Million per 1% share and the other two were advertised at $200 Million per 1%. Storhet responded that they desired to purchase 20% of Turkish Aerospace Industries (TAI) and Roketsan and 50% share to Aselsan A.S. At the time, the base value of the shares was $9,373,101,271.00. If Storhet had purchased the shares at the Egyptian offer price, they would have been required to pay $11,750,000,000.00.

After negotiations, which centered only on the price, the final agreement was the contract that was submitted to the court. Storhet would pay a total of $7.5 Billion for all the stocks, payable over three installments. Honorable court, Egypt accepted to sell these shares to Storhet at 36% less than the advertised price, and 20% less than the actual value of the shares. These shares were sold at this loss pricing under the assumption that Storhet would actually comply with the terms of the agreement. And members of the court that was the totality of their agreement, signed by both and before you today. Egypt would transfer ownership of these shares and Storhet would pay a total of $7.5 Billion over three monthly installments. That was it.

Despite the simple terms of their agreement, when October 1995 came, Storhet refused to pay, citing a condition that was not even present in the simple contract: that payment to Egypt was conditioned upon stock growth. Honorable Court, I invite you to look at the contract submitted to the court. Nothing in that contract, signed by both parties, conditions the payments on anything besides transfer of the stocks and the passage of three months. This case should end here.

However, Storhet stated that they made their intentions known that they were purchasing these stocks "to allow them to grow," as seen in the fax Egypt submitted to this court. This idea of "allowing stocks to grow" was not included in the contract. Nor was it accepted by Egypt. However, even if this court wishes to bind Egypt to a term not included in the contract, this court must consider the manifested intentions that Storhet conveyed to Egypt: that they wanted to purchase stocks to allow them to grow. Any stock purchase made by a reasonable investor is done with the desire to allow the stocks to grow. "Allowing" stocks to grow is done purely by ownership of the stocks. It does not require actual growth. Storhet has been allowed the ability for these stocks to grow from the moment the stocks were transferred and yet Storhet has still refused to pay the agreed upon sum. This court should rule that this term was not included in the contract and that Storhet owes the agreed upon sum. In the alternative, this court should rule that Storhet was allowed to see growth in the stocks by mere ownership of the stocks.

I submit to this court the current values of the stocks purchased in this transaction:

Stock	Current Total Value	Current 1% Value	Value to Storhet
TURKISH AEROSPACE INDUSTRIES	$13,553,351,084.83	$135,533,510.8483‬	$2,710,670,216.966‬ (20% Stake)
ROKETSAN	$9,113,469,786.29	$91,134,697.8629	$1,822,693,957.258 (20% Stake)
ASELSAN A.S	$13,284,693,882.69	$132,846,938.8269	$6,642,346,941.345‬ (50% Stake)

And to compare the actual growth of these stocks, please see this comparison between the value of the stocks at the moment of purchase and their value now:

TOTAL CURRENT VALUE	$11,175,711,115.569‬
VALUE AT TIME OF PURCHASE	$9,373,101,271.00
TOTAL GROWTH	$1,802,609,844.569

Therefore, even by Storhet's own unreasonably applied, hidden contract provision that they wish to be binding on Egypt, the growth has occurred, In fact, the current stock price has decreased somewhat from the time this action was filed and it still shows significant growth at the current, lower price.

Storhet paid $2.5 Billion for stocks now worth over $11 Billion dollars, has seen a 19% growth in the stocks purchased in only a few short months, the difference in value between the agreed price of the stocks and their current value is over $3.6 Billion, and yet Storhet still refuses to pay according to their contract. Storhet has willfully and maliciously withheld payments from Egypt all while profiting enormously.

However, Storhet's claimed contract term of stock growth should be ignored. Our complaint establishes all the reasons why this term should be ignored but for a quick summary: It is far too vague and it places too much discretion in Storhet's hands to make a payment.

If these ancillary statements became part of this contract, we direct the court to the statements made in the negotiation whereby Storhet negotiated to lower the price of these stocks by promising an immediate stock increase when Storhet purchased the stocks. Therefore, Storhet promised that it would fulfill this contract term of "allowing for stock growth" by promising Egypt that the value of the stocks would "immediately" increase upon Storhet's purchase of them. From every angle of this case, Storhet's withholding of their payments is unjustified either because it wasn't a part of the contract, it was immediately fulfilled, or because Storhet stated that they would fulfill this contract term simply by purchasing these stocks.

Finally, we ask this court to consider the implications that Storhet's behavior, if left unpunished by this court, would have for international commerce. Commerce can only flow if the parties agree to a set of rule and expectations at the outset. Storhet's behavior of trying to game the system through cheap phrases, mentioned in passing, and without legal basis, would be a devastating precedent for this court to set. In every future deal, parties would be incentivized to hint at some desire not in the contract then try to bind the second party to this term that the second party had no desire to agree to. This contract was as simple as it gets, the intentions of the parties were clear and they should be bound to those intentions.

Storhet's actions are nothing short of willful, malicious disregard for this contract and this court should hold them accountable.

Thank you."

@Naio90
@Connor
@John
@Dutchy
@Odinson

 

[Connor]

Karl Vikström, Senior Legal Advisor for Storhet Group, would await the Chief Justice to grant his opportunity to speak before rising from his position; of course once the Japanese representatives had completed their statement.

"Good Morning. Thank you, Your Honour. My name is Karl Vikström, Senior Legal Advisor of Storhet Group, a now-international investment organisation primarily orientated around the trading of stock on the global marketplace and investment in surplus military assets for reconditioning and resale. I will be representing Storhet Group's legal interests for this case.

Today I stand before you as a stranger representing a Swedish organisation you have probably never heard of, talking about goods and services you have never traded yourself and explaining contractual law you have may or may not have any knowledge in what-so-ever. This will incite confusion however it will encourage research, require liaison, force explanation. A stranger, from an unknown organisation, talking about goods and services causing confusion, research, liaison and explanation; already sounds troubling, correct? Yet, the Arab Republic of Egypt have stood before you today repeating the word 'simple', pulling you down a wormhole of deception. This matter is far from simple, contractual law never is, this will require common sense and your rightfully given power of discretion.

Allow me to set the scene, similar to how I did when I introduced myself.

In September 1995, or a time period reasonably around this point but no later, the Arab Republic of Egypt advertised a variety of stock in various Egyptian organisations for trade on an international scale. I suspect with no experience in this field. They were approached by a stranger, Storhet Group from Sweden, whom intended to purchase stock to the market value of approximately twelve billion dollars at a negotiated price. The final price stood at $7,500,000,000.00 for a 20% share to Turkish Aerospace Industries (TAI), 20% share to Roketsan and 50% share to Aselsan A.S. The value of this stock was still humongous and it's value post-sale was likely to rise even further given the value of Storhet Group as a shareholder and naturally required the drafting a contract to ensure both parties were secured legally during this trade, and so one was drafted by the Arab Republic of Egypt. This contract consisted of a mere three points.

The plaintiff's exhibits were unclear and difficult to reference formally, so I'd like to draw your attention to our file under exhibit reference SG/01, detailing the terms of the contract. Your Honour, with honesty, does this look like a contract prepared by a government for the trade of assets valued at almost twelve billion dollars? Does this look like a contract you would sign with a stranger, for goods and services you have never traded? This was only the first step of neglect.

I would now like to draw your attention to exhibit reference SG/02, the payment of $2,500,000,000.00 from Storhet Group to the Arab Republic of Egypt. This was our preliminary 'deposit' if you will, displaying clearly our intention to for fill our requirements under the contract and in turn the Arab Republic of Egypt were to transfer the stock, in full, to allow for reasonable growth during the time period between further payments. Where was growth in the contract? This formed part of a verbal agreement upon ratification of the contract. This transfer did not appear on the stock market in September, or October for that matter. Storhet Group received no acknowledgement or benefit of the transfer until November of 1995.

The Arab Republic of Egypt neglected to for fill the requirements of their own contract.

Exhibit reference SG/03a is a copy of correspondence sent by the Arab Republic of Egypt to Storhet Group in October 1995 requesting the second instalment.
Exhibit reference SG/03b is our returned correspondence showing Storhet Group have very clearly displayed their intention to pay, as contractually required, upon the conditions agreed being met. The reason for this was due to the lack of stock growth... the plaintiff continues to repeat how this is 'vague' what they have failed to mention is the fact the stock had not grown because it had not been received. Reiterated in exhibit reference SG/03c.

I am disappointed to see Mr Mori intentionally deceive the court in his opening statement, Your Honour, although he is correct... Storhet Group never had any intention to include the verbal arrangement in the written contract, expecting a form of 'gentlemans agreement' between potential business partners to be respected on both sides, however in further correspondence from the Arab Republic of Egypt it appears they intentionally neglected to include this from the written contract. Your Honour, business is complicated and requires both parties to benefit for it to be worthwhile, on this occasion it appears the Arab Republic of Egypt provided Storhet Group the 'carrot of profit' and lead it in front of us until pen hit the paper. Exhibit reference SG/03d displays their intentional omission of this line and in turn recognising the verbal arrangement made.

As I am sure you will know, verbal arrangements are legally binding. They are often neglected due to their difficulty to prove however in these circumstances the plaintiff has not only admit knowledge of this arrangement in writing but even in their application to the International Court of Justice.

Nevertheless, the stock did eventually appear on the Global Stock Market in November 1995 and in turn Storhet Group saw growth in the purchase - a payment was sent, as defined in the contract, as the third instalment. Exhibit reference SG/04 refers. I am unable to provide paperwork of the formal transfer due to administrative issues however this transfer was valued at $2,500,000,000.00 in line with contractual arrangements. This transfer was never accepted by the Arab Republic of Egypt and after a significant amount of time was cancelled. I am reliably informed that, with time granted to arrange this, a representative from the Global Bank will testify under oath, should it be disputed.

In total Storhet Group made two of three payments in September and November, excluding the October payment as the stock never appeared on the Global Stock Market to allow for growth, making the opening statement provided by the plaintiff ill-informed. This is a simple case of regret. The Arab Republic of Egypt provided a very vague contract in which they openly intended to manipulate Storhet Group however in-turn restricted payments to a mere three-month period without the option for an increase in value or time frame, meaning further payments by Storhet Group would not have been protected by law. They traded with a foreign stranger, for stock worth billions, without any form of legal consultation prior to the drafting and ratification of a contract.

In summary two contracts were made between the Arab Republic of Egypt and Storhet Group for the trade of high-valued stock in 1995, in writing and verbally respectively. A fundamental condition of this contract was not met from the written contract which in turn breached the verbal contract, Storhet Group had still not received their stock on the Global Stock Market in October 1995 and as such did not make the payment for this month. By November 1995 the stock had reached the Global Stock Market and had grown drawing profit for Storhet Group thus a payment was made but never accepted by the Egyptians, intentionally rejecting it despite acknowledging Storhet Group's attempt to meet contractual arrangements. The contract as written does not permit for payments to be made outside of the November 1995 and October 1995 pre-defined dates, not to mention that Storhet Group continues to dispute it's obligation to pay considering the lack of fulfilment from Egypt.

Finding Storhet Group guilty in this matter sets a dangerous precedent, allowing governments to reject payment, manipulate contractual arrangements and later claim victim.

In turn, subject to the provisions provided in the Statue of the Court, Storhet Group would like to counter-claim for reputation damages as a result of this court case. This matter will undoubtedly cause irreversible damage to the reputation of Storhet Group and all future business acquisitions; the organisation has been labelled as a liar. We have valued this damage at the value of $3,127,044,265.32 - a figure reached by a forecast 7% growth this year.

Thank you."​

SG/01 - Written contract ratified by Arab Republic of Egypt and Storhet Group
SG/02 - September 1995 transfer to the value of 2,500,000,000.00
SG/03a - Correspondence from the Arab Republic of Egypt requesting October 1995 instalment
SG/03b - Dispute of contractual obligations being met
SG/03c - Reiteration of dispute of contractual obligations being met
SG/03d - Acknowledgement of verbal arrangement and overt marketplace manipulation
SG/04 - November 1995 transfer to the value of 2,500,000,000.00

 

[Suvorov]

Ryū Mori stood back up and continued, as was the procedure as he understood it. He looked confused and looked to the court. "Your honors... what did we just hear? I would like to walk through opposing counsel's arguments, clearly and concisely, and establish their lack of legal significance...
This sa
First, they argue that the contract was so simple... as to be neglect? "Does this look like a contract you would sign with a stranger, for goods and services you have never traded?" Your honors... this argument advances nothing and fails to establish why a simple contract is neglectful. Opposing counsel's arguments boil down to little more than schoolhouse insults of what is a very real, very binding, and very clear contract. The fact that the contract was simple should be praised and lauded, and should be the exact reason why this court should find that the contract was breached... Storhet's failure to abide by contract terms that are so simple makes their breach that much clearer. There are no terms to this contract that the court is required to jump through hoops to understand. It is clear, simple, and concise. As this is a breach of contract action, that is all the court must look to. These simple words that Storhet still failed to follow. Furthermore, Storhet cannot stand before you and argue that the contract was neglectful... Your Honors, Storhet signed the contract of their own free will. Nothing compelled them to do so. Storhet agreed to the simple terms of this contract, received the benefit of the contract, and willfully failed to abide by them.

Second, Storhet mentions a verbal agreement. Once again, we direct this court to our arguments around terms not included in a contract. This term was not included in the contract and at no point did Egypt agree to this term. Egypt agreed to the terms of the agreement sent, signed by Storhet, and followed by Egypt. Contracts require an offer, acceptance, and consideration under almost any legal framework to make an agreement binding. Without consideration to bind an agreement, Storhet's "verbal agreement" is little more than an unenforceable gentleman's promise. Storhet can show no consideration for accepting this "verbal contract" on Egypt's behalf because any consideration they offered in this agreement - the $7.5 Billion - was consideration for the sale of the stocks. This "verbal agreement" fails to establish any form of legal significance or binding upon Egypt.

Next in this category, as we have established by all clear indicators: Storhet was "allowed" to see stock growth by simple ownership. Storhet cannot try to insert a non-contractual term into a contract, then attempt to dictate one specific interpretation that benefits them when reasonable interpretation would not see it that way. Any investor purchases stocks to "allow" for stock growth. Making payments for them only upon actual growth is a step beyond what that means and patently absurd. Everyone would love to only pay for an investment AFTER it has seen growth... but this makes no sense from a seller's point of view. This also leaves far, far too much discretion in Storhet's hands. They claim a simple contract to be negligent... the "verbal agreement" they assert here is far more simple on its face but patently more complex; and if simplicity of contract equals negligence as they claim... this "verbal agreement" would be the most negligent of them all. This "verbal agreement" for growth sets no standard for growth, no time period, no clause for how they would treat the growth of one stock but the decline of another, no dates for payments of this growth, no amounts to be paid upon growth. Nothing. This is why this "verbal agreement" is too vague to be even considered by this court. No reasonable party to a contract could know how to comply with this term or know how to receive the benefit of the contract. Now not only is this clause wildly vague... Storhet is claiming that these monthly payments were conditioned on being allowed to grow... each month? Again they add meanings and interpretations that no reasonable contracting party could have understood. No reasonable party would agree to sell investments, giving full value of ownership to the purchaser, on the condition that the investment would immediately grow. It is an absurd interpretation and an absurd concept which should not be entertained by this court.

Last in this category of the verbal agreement... Storhet claims that Egypt "Intentionally" omitted this term from the contract... that verbal agreements are legally binding. Your honors... this is simple misdirection and should once again be thrown out for what it is. I point to the fact that Storhet was not forcibly compelled the sign this contract. Storhet signed it freely. If they wanted a term in this contract they were free to include it in the contract, they were free to demand it be included, and they were free to reject the contract as it was provided. But they didn't. They accepted the contract without this term. Why was this "term" not included by Egypt? Because it is an absurd term that they (1) did not see as an actually legally significant term, (2) see as an actually enforceable term, or (3) see as a term they wished to bind themselves to. Egypt's lack of inclusion of this term cannot be seen as an "intentional omission" after dangling some bait to this poor mega corporation; it must be seen for what it was: A rejection and a counter offer of terms acceptable to Egypt which Storhet accepted and received the benefit of the contract from. Negotiations are a back and forth process whereby what was said at the beginning might look vastly different to the final agreement. Parties cannot be bound to negotiation points mentioned but never included into the agreement otherwise contracts would be worthless and impossible to understand. However, Let us continue on this idea of rejection. In contract law, each time a new contract term is suggested after an offer has been made, this creates the following scenario: (1) a rejection of the prior deal and (2) the offering of a new one based on the new terms. Therefore, Egypt affirmatively rejected Storhet's growth term and countered with a contract that did not include it.

To put a bow on it all... Storhet has seen immense growth from these investments.

Third, let us address this idea that Storhet made a "third installment" because they never received growth for the second... Your Honors... to be frank... what? Is Storhet asserting that Storhet was freed of their obligation to make the second installment? That somehow, because the bank had not posted the transaction... Storhet gets to keep the stock without paying for them? That is the assertion. Not only is this ludicrous on its face, it also fails to grasp how stocks and growth on investment works. Storhet agreed to pay $7.5 Billion for stocks in September, this effectively "locked in" the value of the stocks at the moment of the agreement. From that point on, any growth in the stock price is growth to Storhet, whether the Bank shows their ownership or not... For example, we agree to sell apples to me at $10 a pound today and I will pick them up tomorrow. Overnight, prior to me picking them up, the value of a pound of apples rises to $15 a pound. Your honors, even though I do not physically possess the apples, I legally possess them. This means that when I go to pick up my apples the next day, I am only required to pay my $10 for a pound of apples worth $15. I saw growth in their value without even touching them. I am now immediately free to sell them and make profit. This is the exact scenario which Storhet faced. Storhet had legal ownership of those stocks the moment the contract was signed and Egypt complied immediately. Storhet cannot reasonably claim before this court that a banking delay, of no fault of Egypt, frees Storhet from their obligation to pay. Again Storhet is attempting to insert this "verbal agreement" and make it do jumps and tricks so that Storhet can effectively steal billions in value from Egypt.

Fourth, Storhet has directed our attention to this attempted November payment whereby they are claiming that no further payments were owed. Egypt rightfully rejected that payment. Had Egypt accepted that payment Egypt would have ratified by acceptance to Storhet's skewed interpretation of this agreement and settled the issue of the lack of the October payment. Egypt could not accept that payment based on Storhet's posture.

Fifth, let us discuss reputation damage as a result of a court proceeding. This is an untenable position and must be disregarded by this court. This court cannot set the precedent that every time a case is brought before the court, it de jure is a prohibited reputation attack on the defendant. Egypt has a legal right to bring a case against Storhet, founded on good faith belief and reasonable arguments. If this court found that a plaintiff is liable for damages by bringing a suit to court, then the legitimacy of this court and its ability to resolve conflicts would be diminished. No party would bring a claim here if they would be punished for doing so under a guise of "reputation damage." This court should only hold reputation damage as a legitimate claim against a plaintiff when frivolous suits are brought before this court whose sole and clear intention is to harm the defendant. This is a legitimate case with reasonable and good faith arguments. Egypt cannot be punished for exercising its right to bring suit here. The number proposed is also without basis and should be ignored by this court. There has been no showing of proof that this figure accurately represents any form of measurable harm. It is simply a fictitious number that the defendant has conjured. Regardless, this claim is wholly without merit.

Finally, Storhet is saying to this court that they should (1) be allowed to keep the full value of the stocks and (2) not have to pay for them because the bank failed to publicly post the transaction in time. I refer you back to my argument as to why this is incorrect. I also direction you to consider a simple reasonableness to all of this. What would be a reasonable interpretation of the events and a reasonable outcome? Can Egypt really be punished for the Bank's actions? Can Egypt be punished for the banks actions when Egypt did everything it is supposed to do? Should Storhet be allowed to skirt their obligations and get Billions in value for free? The answer, we posit, is simply "no" to all of these questions.

This was a simple contract and the sequence of events that led us here are simple as well:

1. Egypt advertised the sale of stocks

2. Storhet negotiated for the purchase of the stocks (possibly even including a growth term as a proposal)

3. Egypt effectively rejects all prior negotiation offers by offering a simple contract with three provisions.

4. Storhet had the ability to renegotiate, draft, accept or reject the contract as Egypt offered.

5. Storhet accepted the contract as it was written.

6. Egypt fulfilled 100% of its obligations by immediately transferring both legal and physical ownership of the stock at the agreed upon price to Storhet in September.

7. Storhet failed to make its October Payment.

8. Storhet failed to make its November Payment as this payment was not made in accordance with the contract signed.

9. Storhet has, and continues to see immense profits from this deal without having rightfully paid for them.

Your honors, there were no two contracts. Only the one, signed and agreed to in front of you. It had three simple clauses. Storhet failed to comply with them.

Even if this court asserts that there was a verbal agreement, this court should view it as either (1) having been fulfilled (and possibly delayed by the bank at no fault of Egypt and thus should not be construed against them); or (2) that this verbal agreement was so vague as to be unenforceable at law. Its terms are far too unclear to make Egypt know how to comply at the moment of contract. It was clearly not Egypt's intention to agree to this term and it was clearly not their intention to leave it up to Storhet as to how and when to pay Egypt.

This court cannot allow Storhet to steal billions in value from the people of Egypt. They must be held to the terms they freely agreed to.

Find Storhet in breach. Thank you."

@Naio90
@Connor
@John
@Dutchy
@Odinson

Edit: Edited to include link to Egypt's statement that they rejected the provision by sending their counter offer and allowing Storhet to review and counter.

 

[Odinson]

"Thank you," Olhouser said to the Japanese. He looked over to the Swedes and nodded, "Counselor, you may move forward to make a rebuttal before we move on to witnesses, question time, and then closing statements."
@Connor