Ruthern z. Wick: Ruling, 369 E.S.

[___siren___ 441]

AULIC COURT OF THE KINGDOM OF HANSETI-RUSKA

 

Who Wants to be a Minanaire, 

Ruthern z. Wick

 

 

10th of Msitza and Dargund | 369 E.S.

penned by Jovenaar Reza B. Gynsburg @Piov

---

 

Jovenaars

Ms. Erika L. Kortrevich (Presiding)

Ms. Annika Vyronov (Assistant)

Mrs. Reza B. Gynsburg (Assistant)
 

Plaintiff

Lord Aldrik Baruch (on behalf of Harren and Tatiana var Ruthern)
 

Defense

Ser Konstantin Wick
 

Testimonies

Lady Rosalind Amador
 

THE FOLLOWING CHARGES WERE BROUGHT AGAINST THE DEFENDANT;

504.011: Where one party has suffered a wrongdoing causing them economic, reputational or physical harm because of another, that party may take the offending party to Court in pursuit of damages;

 

THE FOLLOWING IS THE VERDICT BROUGHT BY THE JOVENAARS;

Jovenaar Kortrevich, joined by Gynsburg and Vyronov; 

The Defendant, Sir Konstantin is found not guilty on the charge of tort in the form of economic harm. 

 

THE FOLLOWING IS THE RATIONALE FOR THE DECISION FROM THE PRESIDING JOVENAAR;

On the charge of Tort in the form of economic harm.

 

Jovenaar Gynsburg delivered the opinion of the court;

The Plaintiffs’ counsel sought to that his clients experienced economic harm as a result of dishonesty. The charge of Tort (504.01) as applied to the context of a game show, an event where participants willingly enter with the chance to win or lose. As such, the damages as demonstrated by the Plaintiffs’ counsel of having “economic harm” cannot be sustained because the plaintiffs had knowingly entered a contest without guarantee of compensation. While we acknowledge that minors cannot be held to account for contracts, there is an ‘Acknowledged Risk’ in 310.04 to said event as the participants entered into the segment of “Who Wants to be a Minanaire” with the rules stated in the event flyer. Moreover, the rules of “Who Wants to be a Minanaire” stipulate that as soon as the so-called “bomb” was detonated, whoever was in possession of it would be deducted points. It is understood that the plaintiffs knowingly agreed to the rules and were in possession of said “bomb” when the device went off. The host (and defendant) is present to call the time after said “bomb” signaled that the plaintiffs’ time was expired. Moreover the point of economic harm was not sufficiently addressed and the testimony by contestant Lady Rosalind was not proven to show that the Ruthern children lost their livelihood or substantial means. If they are minors, they surely have guardians and parents to look to for financial support.
 

When the witness Lady Rosalind, a contestant of the show, was summoned to testify, she could not recall the bomb nor its functions. This lack of clarity by a contestant questions the moments of the event, due to the technicality being disputed by one saint’s second before the bomb was set to expire. Lady Rosalind indicated that she heard the loud sound a mere second after the plaintiffs’ team answered the question correctly. It was not clarified if the response was clear, said in full, or was accepted as legitimate since Lady Rosalind claimed to have suffered hearing loss. The discretion of the show and its formatting is left to the host and relevant event planners.
 

It is so ordered.