Thursday, December 13, 2018

Story Post: Case 15: Robert v. Goldberg Technology

In this Negligence case, Robert accuses Goldberg Technology of neglecting to file earnings reports in a timely manner, causing Robert to have lost on potential trading earnings.


Kevan: he/him

14-12-2018 09:14:30 UTC

for If the court would review the contract on report filing, my client is only obliged to start the filing process on the date agreed. The exact duration of the submission process, as shown in diagram seven, varies according to local wind conditions, hamster speed and the detonation pattern of the explosive charge.


15-12-2018 16:25:13 UTC

Robert did lose some significant trading earnings, and Goldberg Technology’s filings were seemingly late. However, the charge’s detonation pattern has been demonstrated to have had a higher-than-usual Robertson’s speckling coefficient, plausibly causing a reasonable delay. This case is closed. Goldberg Technology is the winner, and the fine is $81,000.


15-12-2018 16:28:19 UTC

Actually, this fine is pending. The judge finds that Robert’s finances deserve a thorough audit before a fine can be conclusively determined.


15-12-2018 16:42:50 UTC

The audit is complete. An error at the bank had changed Robert’s account balance instead of Anne’s when resolving the fine for Case 10. Having corrected the error, the fine is fixed at $81,000; not the $72,090 that his displayed balance would have suggested.

(My local view of worths, which I consider to be canonical, and were correct, got out of sync with the Ruleset when I updated Robert instead of Anne in this diff. Apologies to anyone who may have been slighted by this small error, e.g. if they did not request Robert as a client because they saw his net worth to be 10% lower than it was.)