Calrissian v. Vader (1 D.T. 2)

(1 D.T. 2)
2011

Calrissian v. Vader

Dickered Terms Supreme Court

February 28th, 2011, Heard in Supreme Court

Factual Background

Plaintiff Lando Calrissian, the Chief Administrator of Cloud City gas mining colony on the planet of Bespin, contracted with Defendant Darth Vader to facilitate the capture of rebel fugitives Leia Organa, Han Solo, and Luke Skywalker.  The original agreement was only for the capture of Han Solo, a mercenary who was wanted by both the Galactic Empire as well as the ruthless mobster Jabba the Hutt.  Organa would be free to leave once Skywalker was captured and she was to receive a pardon from Emperor Palpatine.  The offer was for Calrissian to "aid in the capture of Han Solo and Leia Organa in an effort to lure Luke Skywalker to Cloud City to also be captured."  In return for this, Lord Vader was to "ensure the gas mining colony of Cloud City's economic autonomy", away from the regulatory hand of the Galactic Empire.

Lord Vader later altered the agreement by stating that Organa must never leave Cloud City and that Solo was to be taken by the bounty hunter known as Boba Fett instead of the original agreement which only involved temporary custody on Cloud City.  Calrissian stated, "That was never a condition of our agreement, nor was giving Han to this bounty hunter!"  Lord Vader responded with, "I have altered the terms of the deal, pray I do not alter them any further."  Calrissian exclaimed, "This deal is getting worse all the time."  The District Court held for Lord Vader and the Court of Appeals affirmed.  Calrissian appealed.

Any claims stating that this contract should be unenforceable, due to unconscionability or matters of public policy,  have been granted summary judgment in favor of Defendant considering this is a legitimate act pursuant to Galactic Law and in furtherance of the Galactic Empire.  The only issue on appeal regards the pre-existing duty under contract that Lord Vader owed to Calrissian and whether modification of that contract can be allowed.

MR. JUSTICE MARTIN delivered the opinion of the court.

Quite rare is it, as well as noble, to bring suit against the Galactic Empire, a much formidable adversary.  These courts of law rarely hear cases involving suits against the Empire, most likely because of the efficiency, fairness and peace that it brings to our coalition of transgalactic nations.  During the years of the Republic the courts were overwhelmed with cases and controversies against the government due to its lack of rigidity and overall uncontrolled order.  The Empire in one swift motion can hear the concerns of the people and immediately address them without experiencing the political gridlock that seemed to be an all too common flaw of the democratic Republic.  

In the present case we see at issue the hallmark of a contract, a duty owed to another through a promise.  That promise was for Cloud City’s economic society to be left untouched by the government and in exchange for this Lando Calrissian was to aid Lord Darth Vader in obtaining only temporary custody over Leia Organa and to arrest the mercenary Han Solo for his crimes against the Empire.  Lord Vader then altered the agreement by ordering that Organa must remain in Cloud City for the remainder of her life and that Solo was to be taken prisoner by the bounty hunter Boba Fett until he would be delivered to Jabba the Hutt.  These facts are not disputed by the Empire and neither is the fact that this alteration of the contract was without new consideration.

What is at issue here, however, is whether Calrissian consented to the alteration and if so whether this consent was brought about through duress.  Calrissian contends that he never consented to the modification of the contract and therefore Lord Vader was in violation of a pre-existing duty as a party to the contract.  Lord Vader alleges that Calrissian accepted the new terms to the deal impliedly.  We agree.

Acceptance of an offer to contract can be presented in many forms.  An offeree needn't climb to the top of the mountains of Mustafar and exclaim, "I ACCEPT".  One of the recognized formats of assent, at least in Imperial courts of law, is implied acceptance.  By stating "This deal is getting worse all the time,"Calrissian gave his opinion that he was not pleased with the arrangement. 


But as we have seen before complete contentedness is not a necessary element of assent.  Offerees oft dicker over terms with an offeror and come to an agreement through compromise.  This statement by Calrissian amounted to a compromise, and though he was not entirely pleased with the agreement he did not rescind the contract because he still wanted to enjoy the benefit of the bargain.


Partial rescission of a contract is a lawful way to modify a contract as long as there is mutual consent of the parties that hasn't been brought about through duress. Alaska Packers Ass'n v. Domenico, 117 F. 99 (1902).  That brings us to our second issue, whether duress brought about the manifestation of assent on the part of Calrissian.  In order to show duress four elements must be satisfied: there must be a threat, it must be improper, it must induce the manifestation of assent and it must be "grave enough".  


Calrissian alleges that Lord Vader's statement, "I have altered the terms of the deal, pray I do not alter them any further" amounted to an implied threat of further alteration of the contract and the political power that Lord Vader holds at his disposal should be taken into account when deciding this case.  We disagree.  The purpose of Lord Vader's statement was not a threat, it was not improper and it was not to bring about the manifestation of assent.  It was merely a statement to inform Calrissian that the terms of the deal were being modified and that if Calrissian disagrees with this then he must object, otherwise, he would be impliedly accepting the new terms of the agreement.  


But even if this statement satisfied the first three elements of duress the last element cannot be met.  No judge or jury throughout the systems would find that Lord Vader's statement was grave enough to amount to duress.  It has been held that a party that yields to a new contract, without a hint of protest, to the slightest threat of Force shall not be protected. Watkins & Son v. Carrig, 91 N.H. 459, 21 A.2d 591 (1941).  Calrissian has rights and he should have stood on them instead of rolling over to the mere presence of Lord Vader.  




SO LET IT BE WRITTEN, SO LET IT BE DONE, we hereby AFFIRM the lower court's judgment.

JUSTICE HICKS dissents from the majority opinion.

It is with a trembling hand that I hold this gavel.  Once the Republic was dissolved and the Empire was forged all branches of government became a single entity and though this dictatorship has been viewed as more efficient than the Old Republic it should be noted that this efficiency arrives through the usurpation, as well as death, of democracy.  


It is no wonder that this court's majority holds, "No judge or jury throughout the systems would find that Lord Vader's statement was grave enough to amount to duress."  This statement proves too much.  It confirms the problems that the rebels mentioned in the facts of this case are fighting to eradicate.  These courts of justice are at the end of a leash held by one man who sits at the Grand Palace in Coruscant. A well placed conclusion to the majority's opinion would include the phrase, "Quite frankly our lives are at stake..." Democracy dies with fairness, justice and humanity.  There is no more convincing document than today's decision.

Aftermath of Calrissian

Three days after the judgment was announced and the decision was published Justice Hicks was found dead.  Autopsy results indicated that he died of strangulation. When asked what Lord Vader thought of the dissenting opinion in Calrissian he stated, "The dissenting opinion was at the very best conclusory and completely devoid of reason.  It only becomes more clear that the rebels must be eliminated, as a threat to the Empire, after realizing that their presence was felt on our very courts of law."