The Staff vs. Shakomatic (The Staff v R. Shakomatic [April 2013] 1 KB 1)

Ivanidiot, the leader of the settlement of Neo Wissendorf, joined the Waldsican Empire as a commonwealth and keept the title of Duke of Neo Wissendorf. Later RebelBaron, the leader of the Waldsican Empire, took a break from the game, and acknowledged the transfer of the Waldsican lands to Breshik. Shakomatic, the leader of Breshik, later reformed the lands. Upon RebelBaron's comeback, Shakomatic concluded a unilateral treaty, reinstating the Waldsican Empire. Neo Wissendorf was given the option to decide whether to stay with Waldsic or to move to Breshik. The referendum was not held to the date. Shakomatic later tried to sell Neo Wissendorf to kiatomaran for 24 gold ingots.

Jurisdiction of the Mod Court

The mods are there to oversee the application and interpretation of the server laws. As this issue is a rather difficult one, it deserves a concerted solution as it is unreasonable to assume that a single moderator is qualified enough to settle it. The mod court is the proper institution to adjudicate on the issue. The mod court may take up the issues whenever it is reasonable that the dispute to be settled requires that. The following tests are to be applied. (1) does the issue pertain to the essence of the server laws (2) is it difficult enough to be settled by one mod (3) is it reasonable to take up the case for the concerted judgment  If the answer is positive to all these tests, the mod court may take up the case.

Property law and land claims

In an ordinary proprietary relationship the proprietor has three rights: the right to possess property, the right to use property and the right to dispose of it. That is, the proprietor may defend his property against anyone, acquire profits and do whatever he pleases: sell the property, exchange it for something, destroy it and so on. This is applicable to any property in minecraft except land claims and buildings and supporting structures. The status of land, buildings and supporting structures is somewhat different. These entities may be in possession of a single person (the direct proprietor - the person who built it and takes care of the property) and other persons, such as rulers of nations the direct proprietor may pledge allegiance to. By the virtue of pledging such allegiance, the direct proprietor endows another person (indirect proprietor) with some of his proprietary rights, such as the right to possess and to use the property. However, the full right to dispose remains only with the direct proprietor. The right to dispose is also transferred to the indirect proprietor, but it is limited by the will of the direct proprietor. It is unreasonable to assume that a person to whom the direct proprietor pledges allegiance to acquires the right to dispose the property, acting against the interests of the direct proprietor.  It is reasonable, therefore, to establish a rule regarding this issue.  The indirect proprietor shall not authorized to act to exercise the right to dispose without the consent of the direct proprietor. The direct proprietor may act as he pleases, and the sale of the land shall be presumed as cancelling allegiance.

Acting within capacity

The deals and contracts can only be concluded if they are carried out by the persons who are authorized to act. When the title of the property was passed from the seller, he may no longer sell the same good to another person.  In the case The Staff v  R. Shakomatic April 2013, 1 KB 1, R. concluded a unilateral treaty restoring the Empire of Waldsic in its original state but the Duchy of New Wissendorf. The Duchy was given the right to hold a referendum whether to join Waldsic or Breshik. Thus the control over the Duchy was passed to the Duchy itself and R. had no right to dispose the Duchy.

Judgement on the merits

The deal is void, since R. Shakomatic was devoid of right to dispose of the land. However, it shall be noted that it is unreasonable to assume that a leader of a nation can not dispose of the controlled land. R. Shakomatic could have sold any land, building or supporting structure, provided he were the direct proprietor of the aforementioned. In this case, he was an indirect proprietor and thus could not dispose of the property without the consent of a direct proprietor.

  • decisions/staff_v_shako.txt
  • Last modified: 2020/11/08 04:02
  • (external edit)