Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
News ticker
  • Staff Applications: OPEN
  • Bans issued on or after 01 Oct 19 may only be appealed if made in error
  • Bug reports are to be lodged in game via /bugreport
  • IC - Applications for Honours & Awards are open
New Standalone Support Portal Read more... ×
Sign in to follow this  

Guillani, Taft, Goodman & Associates v Genesis Corporation

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)



Contact Details - Applicant/Plaintiff
First Name: Rudolph 
Last Name: Guillani
Mobile: n/a
Discord: lynxaa3213

Defendant Name: Genesis Corporation
Defendant Organisation (If available): Genesis Corporation
Respondent Discord (if known): 

Statement of Claims:

[1] Your Honour, GTG & Associates (The Plaintiff) engaged in a contract to provide legal services (Term II) to Genesis Corporation (The Defendant) on an ongoing basis. In return for providing this legal service, the Defendant agreed to pay the Plaintiff a sum of $1.5 million per month (Term VII). This agreement was reduced to writing (exhibit A); both parties signed the agreement on the 13th of January 2022. Thereby both parties are bound by the terms of the agreement as per L'Estrange v F Graucob Ltd [1934] 2 KB 394.

[2] Both parties carried out their obligations as per the written agreement until the payment was due on the 13th of May 2022, when the Defendant failed to meet their contractual obligations. Mr. Goodman reached out to Mr. Chenis to come to an agreement to arrnage the payment. Mr. Chenis informed Mr. Goodman that they had a change of some of their managerial staff and would need an extension, Mr. Goodman agreed and gave them until the end of May to arrange the payment to which Mr. Chenis Agreed.

[3] When the time came for the payment to be made at the end of May, Mr. Goodman once again reached out to the Defendant to ascertain when they would transfer the payment, to which the Defendant ignored him; Mr. Goodman reached out several more times to no avail. On the 05 of June 2022, Mr. Goodman emailed the Defendant informing him of the Plaintiff’s decision to terminate the contract from the 15th of June 2022. There was no response from the Defendant on further attempts to mediate the issue.

[4] Your Honour, it is clear that the elements of the formation of the contract have been formed as per section 4 of the Corporations, Contracts & Labour Act 2018. In any event, the parties have affirmed the contract due to performance.

[5] Your Honour, the Plaintiff submits it had a right to terminate the contract and seek from the Defendant the monies owed to the Plaintiff as the Defendant had breached an essential term giving rise to termination and damages. Your Honour, in determining what an essential term is a leading authority on the matter is  Luna Park (NSW) Ltd v Tramways Advertising Pty Ltd [1938] HCA 66, in which the Court affirms the use of the test of essentiality. The test of essentiality is would the innocent party have entered into the contract if strict compliance with the term in question was not complied with. Your Honour, we submit that the Plaintiff would not have entered into the contract unless strict compliance with the term (VII) in question was guaranteed; the payment to the Plaintiff for their services is quite obviously an essential term of the contract. As if it was not complied with why would the Plaintiff enter into the contract if they were not going to be remunerated for it. Your Honour, we would submit that pursuant to section 7 e Corporations, Contracts & Labour Act 2018, the Plaintiff has the right to terminate for breach.

[6] Your Honour, if the Court finds that the aforementioned term was not essential (Term VII), the Plaintiff submits that the Plaintiff has a right to terminate the contract due to the Defendant repudiating the contract by conduct. Your Honour, it was established in Sunbird Plaza Pty Ltd v Maloney (1988) 166 CLR 245 that repudiation of a contract can be established by a party's conduct. Your Honour, we submit that by the Defendant refusing to respond to the Plaintiffs requests for payment of the agreed amount that the, Defendant has repudiated the contract by way of their conduct, giving rise to the Plaintiff the right to terminate the contract and seek damages.

[7] Your honour, the Plaintiff seeks the following orders from the Court, 

i) The defendant pay the plaintiffs legal fee's.

ii) The Defendant pay the amount owed to the Plaintiff an amount of $4,500,000. The Court has the authority to order this pursuant to section 9 Corporations, Contracts & Labour Act 2018.




Contract - https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Ry6TLqFlXMJVdJlDhKl9fNTAhWKG6xt0/edit

Acknowledgement: Failure to acknowledge the following will result in penalties
1. I acknowledge that under section 22 of the Crimes Act 2018 and section 8 of the Judicial Procedures Act 2019 that it is an offence to provide falsified statements or evidence and may result in harsh penalty if convicted.
2. I acknowledge that under section 15 of the Judicial Procedures Act 2019 that there will be a fee associated with the court proceedings of this case, per person in each party.(Y
3. I authorise the Government of San Andreas to deduct any fees set out in point 2 above from my bank account automatically. 
(Attach evidence of consent from additional applicants to this case). Y

Edited by Vladimir.k12

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)


Guillani, Taft, Goodman & Associates v Genesis Corporation [2022] SADC 32

[1] The District Court accepts the plaintiff's statement of claim against the defendant.

[2] The defendant is directed to file an appearance and a defence within five days, effective from receiving notice of these proceedings being accepted by the Court. Failure to provide a response or appearance will result in the proceedings being heard without the defendant and may result in a judgment in the favour of the plaintiff by default.

[3] The Court will contact the parties to give directions about how these proceedings will be conducted.

[4] Whilst presided over by a Supreme Court Justice, this case is being heard at a District Court level. 

CASE TITLE: Guillani, Taft, Goodman & Associates v Genesis Corporation [2022] SADC 32




Edited by Nukaa (Harold J. Holt)

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Guidelines.