Suvorov
Addict
- Jan 18, 2020
- 1,142
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. “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 |