Pebblerelena Fraud - Guilty

Lawsuit between Pebblerelena and Somerset

Bill of indictment

Quote :

It is alleged that in the 26th of december of 1454, the defendant, Pebblerelena, commit the crime of fraud as it is in the 006 Sixth Book of Law - Fraud / 001 Economic manipulation / - buying one or more goods and reselling it against a higher price on the same market.

The evidence was brought to the Court by Asteria and can be seen by all in the Sommerset Inn in the Public Prosecutor Office.

The defendant has the right to defend herself or to ask for legal assistance.

First defence pleading

Quote :

Thank for your this opportunity to defend myself from such overblown accusations.

I understand I am being charged of the crime of speculation. I think the law provides this protection to its citizens to prevent them from artificially increased prices that have nothing to do with the actual effects of supply and demand. For example, Mr. A a local baker decides to sell his bread in the local market for 8 pounds. During that time, there was also bread being sold for 9 pounds and 10 pounds. Mr. B happens to just stumble upon Mr. A's supply in the market, decides to buy off Mr. A's bread and subsequently lists it for 8.9 pounds. Mr. A finds out about the new supply and decided to buy it back, discovering Mr. B's treachery and reports him to the authorities. Mr. B's actions is just flat out criminal in nature. He bought out goods readily sold on the same market and attempted to sell them for a higher price on that very same market.

My situation has some very important differences.

First of all, Asteria is not citizen of Chard. That makes Asteria trader and part of 'another' market. Asteria is a foreign agent and it is questionable if Asteria could be counted as part of the market of Chard.

Second, the fish I bought from Asteria was not readily available in the market. For an article to be considered readily available, it should have been previously posted with anybody in town given an equal opportunity to purchase the item. This transaction was made in the one of Chard's taverns. And made readily available through a direct purchase from Asteria as a result of that transaction. It should also be noted that there were no previous postings of the fish at that price level prior to the transaction, so in effect she wasn't selling them to the local market to begin with.

Third, there was no agreement in our contract of sale that prohibited me from selling the fish to a third person or our local market. The law allows contracts to be made and certain agreements for hiring for lower than minimum wage. The fact that we have discussed the deal and the fact that the fish was placed especially for me shows that it was a real contract. And according to that contract, I was not forbidden to sell the fish.

Prosecutor indictment

Quote :

"Your honour,

Once again, I reiterate the article of the law which governs this case. The Article is Article 2.3.2. which reads as

“Speculation is defined as any action a citizen takes that consists of buying one or more goods and reselling it again at a higher price on the same market.”

Under the definition of the law, it doesn’t matter who is selling the goods, and where the seller is from. Thus it doesn’t matter whether Asteria, the person who sold the fish to the Defendant in the first place, is a citizen of Chard or not. All that matters is the fact that a citizen cannot buy one or more goods and resell it a higher price on the same market.

As the evidence shows, there is clear proof that the Defendant did indeed buy 5 fish at 19,00 pounds each from Asteria in the players market of Chard, and the evidence also shows that fish was sold at 19,40 pounds by the Defendant on the same market.

The Defendant himself has admitted in his statement that it is indeed the same fish that he had bought from Asteria that he had resold on the same market that is Chard’s players market. Thus the Defendant has admitted his own guilt.

The Defendant refers to a contract in his defence statement. The Article governing the strength of proof as far as contracts are concerned can be found in Article 1.4.6. :
“Value of proof, by decreasing order of its force:
i. The highest form of proof is a contract or a written agreement. An official contract signed by two or more parties needs the approval of the council. A written agreement is a document signed by two or more parties and published in public. Any written proof has higher precedence than any spoken agreement.”

As the Court can clearly see, Article. 1.4.6 states that “An official contract signed by two or more parties needs the approval of the council.” Any council member, including the Judge, can see that there was no such approval of any contract between Pebblerelena and Asteria in the council chambers of Somerset.

Thus regarding the Defendant’s contention that there was a contract, at best there would have been a spoken agreement, if any, that Asteria would sell the Defendant fish at 19,.00 pounds. But that certainly doesn’t give the Defendant the freedom to resell the said fish at a higher price, because any such transaction will then be covered under the Speculation law as stated in Article 2.3.2.

In conclusion, Your Honour, this case is governed by one and only one section of the law only and that is the Speculation law of Article 2.3.2. of the Legal Corpus of Somerset. Under that section of the law, I humbly request the Court to find the Defendant guilty. Thank you."

Last defence pleading

Quote :

Your honour,

Please allow me to remind this court on the actual market conditions on that very day.

First of all, there were several posting of fish on the market. The lowest price at which was for 19.50. There was no legitimate posting of 5 fishes for 19 pounds which is readily available in the market.

Second, the transfer of the fishes was done in a tavern. Asteria's offer of getting fishes for 19 pounds was done in a tavern. And frankly, I should have gotten my items in the tavern. This can't be a market transaction. Think about it. It would be absolutely insane for 2 individuals have agreed to have an exchange and have the goods ON HAND to have leave the comforts of the tavern and walk several miles to the nearest market to exchange whatever it is that's in their possession. Would you do that, Mr Prosecutor? Frankly, the nature of this exchange is marred by a technical limitation of exchanges happening in this particular universe. There is just no direct way of handing out something to anybody, even when it's in their inventory.

Thirdly, it was reposted for a price lower than that of the ACTUAL market price of 19.50, which can be contrued as doing the citizens of Chard a service by providing them with a cheaper alternative since the prices of fish hover around the 20-21 pound level. You see
I might have aided in the price's deflation rather than inflation which is what the crime of speculation is all about. Not everyone in Chard visits its taverns, avail of an agent's goodwill and get a discount.

Your honour,

I am not guilty of speculation. I am only a victim of technical limitations and the inability to truly represent what has been roleplayed.

The prosecutor called Asteria

Quote :

Your Honour,

I wish it to be known that I sought to offer a discount on the normal asking price of the fish that I was selling in Chard to the Defendant out of my goodwill towards him. After I sold him 5 fishes at the discounted price of 19,00 pounds each, he posted at least 1 fish for 19,40 pounds, which was 0,10 pounds below my lowest regular priced fish.

I know that the defendant sold one fish, at the very least, because I was able to buy it, but there were still 3 other fishes for the same price that I was unable to buy, as shown in the evidence. It is very unlikely that these fish came from another source because the fish market had not changed since the purchase of the 5 fishes and one of the fish purchased from the group was from the defendant. Also, I had purchased only one fish at first because I didn't want to spend the extra money since I wasn't sure I would get it back. A friend told me to buy the other fish as well shortly after that and I tried to, but the transaction couldnt be completed as can be seen from the evidence. This could indicate either that the defendant took them off to avoid a heavier fine after seeing who purchased his first fish, or someone else bought it ahead of me, indicating that the defendant’s fish had been sold, leading to loss of sales for me.

The prosecutor called Jellysnail

Quote :

The PP, Myrnia, accidentally gave the wrong law because this crime was committed after the new laws were passed.

Art. 2.3.2. : Speculation is defined as any action a citizen takes that consists of buying one or more goods and reselling it again at a higher price on the same market. This is a light crime and the sentence is set in Article 2.1.3.

Statement of accusation
The defendant has been proved guilty of fraud.

Quote :

Defendant Pebblerelena,
This Court finds you guilty of the commission of fraud, specifically on the charge of speculation as stated in Article. 2.3.2. of the Legal Corpus of Somerset.

You have admitted that you did indeed buy fish from the complainant Asteria in the town of Chard, and that thereafter you did sell the fish in the same market. Thus the charge of speculation is indeed valid.

Also you have presented neither a formal document nor any witnesses with regards to this alleged contract agreement between yourself and the Defendant.

Due to the fact that the complainant saw 4 fishes posted at 19.40 pounds each on the market, at least one of which was sold by you, the Court hereby fines you to the amount of 78 pounds.

If you wish to appeal this case, please approach the Court of Appeals at the following address : http://forum.renaissancekingdoms.com/viewforum.php?f=98

The defendant has been sentenced to 78 pounds fine.