 Thank you very much for talking to us for the first or second semi-primal, if we are going to encounter teams of Yash and Vienna, so thank you so much. May it please the court. Mr. President, member of the court, my name is Marie Boudette, and I appear together with my long colleague, the relevant, for the plaintiff, Eborus, in this manner. We intend to speak 10 minutes each. Our client requests that you grant him an axial processor against botanicals to defend him in this manner. This claim is divided into two branches. The payment of a 200,000-solidity penalty for rejecting the arbitrator's decision and the payment of a 2.5 million solidity as withdrawal payment. I will personally address before the court the first branch of the axial processor, the payment of the penalty that amount to 200,000 solidity. Our first and main submission concerning this first branch is that Britannicus should pay the agreed penalty, as he breached an obligation that was combined with a penalty clause. Our second submission is that the arbitrator's decision respected the legal requirement and led to a proper arbitral decision because the arbitrator's were independent and because the dispute arose before the beginning of the arbitrator's office. I will now address before the court our first submission that the defendant should pay the 200,000-solidity penalty. The clause, named by the Greek letter Zeta, establishes that dispute between members would be submitted to arbitration, and that each member promised to pay a penalty of 200,000 solidity if it shall fail to abide by the decision of the arbitrator's. We submit that, as per the second part of this clause, the defendant should pay the agreed penalty, as he refused to comply with the arbitral decision deciding that ease withdrawal was effective. Well, it says that the penalty is payable for disputes about the arisenment of the Pactum Romano, which drew all the legs of the Pactum Intercom. So, why don't we read it to the client here? Thank you for your question. It is our submission that, after the false clause of the Pactum Romano, it was already stated that it could be altered from time to time. In addition, when the Pactum Lucitanicum was entered into, the member of the group were aware of the fact that it would alter the Pactum Romano and that dispute arising under this new Pactum Romano would fall under the scope of the arbitration clause. But doesn't Pactum Lucitanicum create a whole new partnership? No, it is an additional, it is an addendum to the Sokitas Agreement. Can you modify the contract in this way or the Pactum Romano? As it is provided by the Pactum Romano itself that it could be modified, yes we can, it is our submission. And so should they have wanted to avoid this, that the dispute arising under the Pactum Lucitanicum fall under the arbitration clause, they would have expressly provided it in the Pactum Lucitanicum, but they didn't. So, this clause is a penalty clause. And in order to enforce a penalty clause, two conditions must be fought for. Wasn't there a time interval, I mean there was a time difference between the conclusion of the Pactum Lucitanicum and the Pactum Romano? Did you consider that of having any effect in your case? Did it have to be contemporary or is it trivial to your case the fact that they're not made at the same time? In this submission that the difference of time is not a problem because from the beginning they provided that it could be altered from time to time and they already provide that later agreement with alter the first one. Thank you. So, there must be two conditions must be fought for in order to enforce a penalty clause. There must firstly be an obligation which is certainly not complied with. If those two conditions are met, the non-compliant party should pay the agreed penalty. In Caso, we submit that the defendant had the obligation to comply with the arbitral decision. He nevertheless rejected this decision and wrote to each member of the group to inform them about his unwillingness to respect the arbitral decision. He should thus pay the agreed penalty that amounted to 200,000. Besides, this conclusion also relies on text 3 of my bundle. This text states that those who choose arbitrators should do so under a stipulation with a penalty attached in a moment. Did Britannicus choose an arbitrator? It is our submission that when the dispute arose, Britannicus and all the parties of the group agreed on the arbitrators because the words of the leaderless only states that the defendant complied about the arbitral decision after it was rendered and after he was aware that this decision was against him. So, this clause states further that they must either abide by the decision or they must first pay the penalty after which they have the right to disagree. Are you aware of any legal provision, maybe? British Leeds members may have a deadline for objecting to an arbitration award after the rendering, after the conclusion of the arbitration. Thank you, my lady, for your question. We are aware of this text, but this text only applies when there is no stipulation that is provided to enforce the arbitration decision. So, this text clearly states that the defendant should first pay the penalty and this is why our first submission is that the defendant should pay the 200,000 solid penalties. I will now address before your Excellencies our second submission that the arbitrators led to a proper arbitral decision as they were independent and as the dispute arose before the beginning of the arbitrator's office. Indeed, firstly, the arbitrators were no longer a member of the management committee and the requirement established by text 5 of my bundle, which forbids evident favoritism from the arbitrators, is met. They no longer derived any benefit from the circuiters and no longer had decision-making power in it. They indeed knew the parties, but they knew Ebroius as well as Britannicus. I'm sorry, do we know that they're not members of the Securities Act anymore? We're just sure we're not members of the management committee. Thank you, my lady, for your question. As per the alpha clause of the Pactum womanum, each member of the group has a vote into the management committee. It is thus our submission that former members of the management committee should either be former members of the circuiters or form of third parties that were only members of the management committee or that are not members of the management committee anymore. In case there were former members of the management committee, they must have been somehow involved in the decisions they would now be reviewing. So, without the legal pleats leading to evident favoritism. It is our submission that they only decide about the effectivity of Britannicus' withdrawal. They are not involved in this decision in the fact that Britannicus decided to withdraw from the circuiters. So, I was stating, if I may proceed in my submission, that they of course knew the parties, but knowing the parties is not a cause of evident favoritism. It actually makes sense for parties to an arbitration to choose someone they know and whose expertise they recognize. This submission, that they were independent, is also corroborated by the seven of my bundle that I invite you to take. If even a son can judge in its father-mother, why should form a member of the management committee not be entitled to judge in this manner? Isn't it the case in our case here that a defendant has been constantly and for several years been voting against the decisions of the management committee because it was contrary to his interest, I take it, from the liberals. So, the very members of the committee, of the management committee, against whom he has been voting all these years, I now call upon to decide his case. Thank you, my lady, for your question. But it is not the other members of the management committee that voted against Britannicus. It is Britannicus that voted against the other members of the management committee. But should Britannicus have voted for the decision of the management committee, it's the same, he was willing to vote and they invited Britannicus to be a member of the Sokitas too. But he was not happy with the decision-making of the Sokitas and that's why he decided to withdraw from the Sokitas. Okay, so the fact that he was against the decision so far doesn't create any kind of implication with regard to the impartiality of the judges, I take it? No, it doesn't change. They were still impartial because they had to choose on the question of the validity of Britannicus' withdrawal. So, this is why the arbitrators were independent and suddenly, in accordance with text 8 of my window, the dispute arose before the beginning of the arbitrator's office. The dispute was only Latin at the time of the entering into of the Pactum Musitamica and still at the time the defendant decided to withdraw from the Sokitas. I see my time as a lapse. May I just have an additional time to sum up my submission, please? Yeah, one minute, yeah. Thank you. So, I was stating that the dispute only arose when the defendant decided to declare his withdrawal as being ineffective. Then only the arbitrators decided on the issue and as the legal formal requirement are met, the arbitrators led to a proper arbitral decision regardless the substance of the decision. This proper decision was not by the defendant, even though there was a penalty clause stating that a failure to abide by a proper decision of the arbitrator would result to a penalty that amounts to $200,000. And this is why we are claiming that the defendant should pay this penalty. I will not be of any further assistance to the court. This concludes my submission and I will give the floor to my loan colleague, Zere Le Dan, who will address the second branch of the actual process of the withdrawal payment. May it please the court. I would like to start by thanking my loan colleague, Marie Budes, for introducing me to this honorable court. I will personally address you on the claim concerning the withdrawal payment. Our submission is that Britannicus has effectively made application of the withdrawal price. This clause needs to be interpreted in accordance with its purpose. Moreover, in the present circumstances, Britannicus cannot revoke his withdrawal. As a consequence, Britannicus must be sentenced to pay a sum of $2.5 million solidly to the rest of the group. This sum is calculated taking into account the loans contracted in 546, which are free of interest. As to the withdrawal, we submit that it was effective. The pact to Lusitanicum, which is the latest agreement among the members, allows each of them to leave the group, as you may read in paragraph 3 of the levels. It sets one formal condition for the withdrawal, that the withdrawing member gives notice in writing to the other members so that they are aware of his intention to leave. In the present case, Britannicus has effectively sent a notice to the other members. In accordance with the wording of the pact to Lusitanicum, he has expressed his willingness to withdraw from the group. The destruction of the notice is not relevant here, since it was not commanded by Britannicus. As to the other members, they were all notified the withdrawal. The fact that Iborius did not get the notice sent to him is neither relevant, since he was informed of the withdrawal through another way, as you may read in paragraph 6 of the levels. According to text 1 of my bundle, we stress that one may have to look behind the wording of a contract and focus on the common intention of the parties. Here the common intention underlying the clause is to make sure that all the other, so key, are aware of the withdrawal so that they can take an active part in the negotiations. Indeed, if no notice was given, they might continue acting in reliance of all the partners being members of the group. They might not be in a position to assert their rights, and this would, of course, be detrimental for them. So according to this interpretation, we submit that the clause is rooted in the intention to protect the other so-called members. Excuse me, I was admitting that the reason why the parties opted for identification was to allow the countdown of one year from the negotiations, to best calculate the liabilities of the withdrawal member. Thank you, my lady. Our submission is that the aim of the clause is to allow negotiations to go on, so to best calculate the rights and liabilities. And the term of a year that has been set there for was rather like a time indication in order for these negotiations to take place. So the actual condition is the notice and the aim of it is that all the members are aware of the withdrawal. So when did this one year period begin? When all the members were informed or when just any of them was informed? I mean, isn't this the reason why we opted for identification and writing? Yes, our submission is that the term of a year starts when all the partners became aware of the withdrawal. So our interpretation is also consistent with the principles of good faith and brotherhood, both essential in Isochitas, as you may read in text 2 and 3 of my bundle. It is also corroborated by text 4. We infer from this text that when there are several possible interpretations, the one that is most complying with the nature of the contract must be chosen. So as all the remaining partners were made aware of... Excuse me, I'm talking about this text number four says that one is most readily to be accepted which is most suitable to the conduct of the affair. Which affair I'm talking about in the remaining intact of the Isochitas or the withdrawal? Our submission here is that the affair refers to rather the contract, the Isochitas in itself. So that the nature of Isochitas is a contract of good faith. But it would be favorable for the Isochitas if it was not resolved by the withdrawal of the Amatartic? Yes, my lord, indeed it is our submission that here the Isochitas is not dissolved by the withdrawals as permitted by text 21 of my bundle stating that it is sometimes necessary to launch an action on partnership even when the partnership is still in operation. So why is this the case in the case at hand? Because it is only one member withdrawing from the group so we submit that the rest the remainder of the members have the intention to continue the activities in the Isochitas. But is this what the source number 21 has? Not exactly, it gives an example but we submit that it can be applied in any case. There isn't any source in the view to the opposite effect that it says that once you announce the partnership, the contract is at an end. Thank you, my lady. Actually this source needs to be together with the next one, source 23 and in the end you can read that unless some other provision was agreed in the establishment of the partnership which was the case here. May I proceed? Thank you. So here the protective aim of the clause has been fulfilled. So I will now address your excellencies with the impossibility for Britannicus to revoke his withdrawal from his mid bundle and with the principles of coach faith and wildhood. The factum russitanicum states that a withdrawal is to be enforced one year after a notification. Such a period makes it possible to conduct negotiations in order to plan withdrawal. Britannicus has allowed these negotiations to go on for almost a year before deciding that he would rather stay a member of the group. The other partners had already engaged time and cost in the negotiations. They had already taken additional steps in order to prepare. Excuse me? We have in the level of no indication but as the negotiations were going on for a year we submit that it makes sense that actually they already took steps towards co-contractors for example. That's disadvantage already incurred. What disadvantage would follow from the chain of mind? Well, the disadvantage would be that they would have to start this all over again. I just want to continue as it is. It is our submission that the costs were already incurred and that if Britannicus was to stay a member this cost would have incurred for nothing. Right, but those costs have already been incurred. That's not really a disadvantage flowing from the chain of mind. We're just changing how we think those costs are going to be useful to you slowly. But if we allow him to stay in the partnership he will not fail to withdraw payments. So we don't get through that to penalty. That's the disadvantage. Excuse me? So the loss of being able to enforce a penalty is a disadvantage. Basically, you don't get to punish Britannicus. It's not an idea of punishment. It's an idea of following what has been agreed. It was agreed in the contract that when a member withdraws withdrawal payment is incurred. Okay. So here we submit that his change of mind would be detrimental and contrary to text file. So as to the amount of the withdrawal payment in cure we submit that it has to be calculated taking into account that the loss contracted in 546 were free of interest. Indeed, Britannicus states that the rate is 8%. And this is in accordance with text 8 of my bundle. But this text does not state an obligation. It only states a maximum rate. The aim is to protect the debtors from an excessively high rates. So parties cannot be reproached for having actually agreed upon a lower rate. Moreover, this text states that the rate of interest can be agreed upon orally, which was the case here. The oral agreement prevails over the written one because it reflects the actual will of the parties. Do you have any evidence for this to be written? Excuse me. What was written down? Because first of all, what is... I'm sorry, I see my time is up. May I have a moment? Well, what has been written down was not really specified as no specific rate of interest was said. And what has been actually agreed between the parties is that it would be a rate of interest of 0%. And according to text 12th of my bundle we state that where there are two contradictory documents or two contradictory contracts the truth must prevail. Here the truth is what the parties that actually wanted. So they were lying when they wrote down to be interested. Our submission is that they further discussed with the co-contractors and arrived at an agreement for a 0% rate of interest. May I just conclude? Thank you. So I hope your excellencies have our central point in mind, which are for you. Beatani Q.Seth effectively left the group. Has he as duly informed he is so key of his withdrawal. As a consequence, he must be sentenced to a withdrawal payment amounting to 2.5 millions only. Unless I may be of any further assistance to your excellencies, this concludes our submission. Thank you. Make please the call. My name is Simela and I am here together with my colleague, Miss Lavosofi Potsofa. We are participants from the University of Vienna. We each need roughly 10 minutes for our submissions. I will submit while the first claim is to be dismissed, while my junior councillor, Miss Potsofa, will submit while the second claim is also to be dismissed. The first claim is that Act 2 for Sokio for 200,000 solid die for not abiding by the arbitrary decision. The claim is based on Paradise Leap of the Patron Romanum, to pay 200,000 solid die to do not abide by the proper decision of arbitrators. Which brings up the question whether the decision was even proper. There are several indications in our case for lack of properness. Firstly, every arbitrator was a former member of the management committee. The same organ of the security that gave out big loans to friends about specifying an interest rate that keeps its books in such a state that it is impossible to tell from them how much money is owed in the room. And the same management committee that would hugely profit off of Britannicus leaving the Sokiatas, thereby paying more than 2,000,000 solid die. It is not in the fact that they are not members of the Sokiatas, as my own friend for the plaintiff has claimed. My own friend for the plaintiff also claimed that they must have known Britannicus and that this means that there can't be any favoritism. But this is also not in the fact as they could have been members of the management committee before they were given the right to agree. Orphean informs us in Digest 4.8.9.3 which you will find on page 4 section 2 of your bundle that a corrupt arbitrator won his behavior scandalous or not to render an award. The behavior of the management committee as I have just briefly described it can surely be described as scandalous or even corrupt. The rule of the aforementioned digest is supposed to guarantee the fairness and impartiality in our case they have been neither fair nor impartial. What is that they did that creates even the impression that we can't? Thank you for the question my lady. And first of all they are involved in the Sokiatas so they have an interest in that case. And it is our submission that this contradicts the digest that you will find on page 6 section 6 which is Digest 4.8.51 where Marcin says that no one is to be arbitred in his own case and it is scandalous when one renders a decision where he has an interest That's not what text 6 says it says because no one can even give an order or issue a prohibition to himself so that's literally you can't decide a matter in which you are a party rather than you have an interest in the case. Thank you for the remark. It is my submission that when we look at both stages at the same time we can see that when one has an interest in the case then you are in a way acting in a scandalous way aren't you? It's for you to tell us. Okay. It is my submission that stating that they are former members of the management committee obviously indicate there are members of the Sokiatas from the fact that there are other people who used to be in the management committee and are now Sokiatas for example, Mediolanus Those submissions showed that the decision was improper and why therefore the Sokiatas cannot demand the 200,000 solid I find The word proper was not mistakenly included in paragraph 6 of the Parc de Momanum but put there with intention that intention must have been to ensure impartiality and fairness especially since the Sokiatas is filled with bona fides It would have been against everything the Sokiatas holds to appoint arbiters who are not compelled to act in the same way that a good man would. Excuse me Kassel, but why didn't your kind protest beforehand when you got to know that the arbiters should be former members of the management committee Isn't it a little bit problematic especially in the contract of good pay when you first wait what the arbiters do and then complain because they are the former affiliation to this Kogiatas. Thank you for the question Mr President It is our submission that it is a perfect example of good faith that he expected them to act impartially and fair even though they were former members of the management committee and he didn't suspect them to act in the way that they later on showed that they would act Then this one bring us to solve three of your opponents a false sheet in case you want to appeal against an arbiters decision you have to pay first to make up this argument I would like to bring against this source the digest which you will find on page 4 section 5 of my bundle which is the digest 17.2 0.76 0.278 where Kogiatas says that there are different kinds of arbiters and I submit that the source that the plaintiff has brought refers to the first kind of arbiters and I think that in the case of a partnership the second kind of arbiters the correct one because the Kogiatas is after all built on one of Peter's and Prokulis expressly stresses that in the digest Where can I find in text number 3 of your opponents sources only applies to this other type of arbitration You cannot find it expressly stated there that it only applies that it only applies to this but it is our submission that the text is to be read in this particular way Why should it be read in this way? Because the word arbiter can mean both someone who acts as a U-dex and someone who has more the job of an estimator and it is my submission that this digest that my loan friends for the plaintiff have brought only is to be applied in the first case and not in the second Okay Therefore we must conclude that the decision is only to be obeyed when it aligns with what a via bonus would have decided and it is clear that a via bonus would not force a Sorkius out of his accusers against his own will Since the Pactum Romanum explicitly states that one only has to pay to be when not abiding by a proper decision the argument in the Contario must be that when one doesn't abide by an improper decision the fine cannot be demanded Furthermore it should be emphasised that the tank is explicitly linked is not abiding by the decision with the decision's improperness Furthermore I also submit to the Digest on page 7 which is by just 44.4.4.7 when Laabeo said that if in a claim for a slave judgment was given that the slave shall be delivered within a fixed period and a penalty was stipulated should the slave not be delivered the plaintiff cannot claim both the slave and the penalty because it would be inequitable to claim both. Hence we submit that the partnership too can also only demand for Britannicus to either pay the penalty fee or to pay the withdrawal fee. Therefore the first claim and the second claim contradict each other. Why is that? Here but to a link you even get the slave or the penalty withdrawal is distinct from the withdrawal payment isn't the penalty sorry distinct from the withdrawal payment they are not interlinked in the same way. Thank you for your remark by directing your Excellency too the Digest 17.2.71 which you will find on the same page where we have a scenario which is very much like ours we have partners who form a partnership and they draw up a pattern with all the rules and what they have to do and they also include a clause for a civil arts opener just like this so Peter did and here also Paula states that the members are not in obligation to do as is demanded and to pay the penalty but to only do either or and therefore we submit the tutor Excellencies decide in favor of the second even if we follow this provision that was specifically agreed beforehand between the members of the partnership whereas in our case it was agreed on the contrary that there would be a penalty if and lastly you didn't say we didn't agree that they would do either or the other. Thank you for your remark it is our submission that if they force Britannicus to leave the Societus so if he has to withdraw then he's also forced to abide and then the penalty cannot be demanded. If the penalty is demanded for not leaving the Societus then one cannot demand of him to pay the money that you have to pay when you leave the Societus. But I think that the plaintiffs have provided us with a provision stating in specific that one raises the bloody or under penalty half the penalty unless you were to say that for instance this is not an issue that this is not applicable in our case I don't see how you could maneuver around that provision. I don't think that I understood the question correct. I think that they do have a specific provision stating that when there is a stipulation and penalty and somebody rejects the award then you have firstly to pay the penalty. Oh thank you now I understood but it is also stated there that when the court later on states that you were right and the arbitrators were wrong you can demand the penalty back So did you consider that? I considered that if our client paid the money and got it back it would be of us to know difference as not paying it. So would you think? If we were sure that we'd get the money back yes. Our final submission is why doesn't the fine doesn't have to be paid as the whole withdrawal was ineffective. Excuse me I see that my time has expired can I have another minute for my final My junior council will focus on different reasons why the withdrawal has been ineffective but I want to say that one further reason is that Britannicus was in error at the time where he declared his will to leave the partnership In the text from the largest on page 10 which is largest 19.2 .52 Components informs us that one is in error about the price of the lease the lease does not take place. We're concerned with a different legal act in the lease or withdrawal from a partnership but the rationale still persists. Britannicus did not know at the time where he declared his will that he would be indebted with such a sum. Therefore he, like the errant lease and compound news tax ought not to be found by his declaration Unless your excellencies have any further question we submit on the basis of those submissions to the best plan to dismiss. Make peace the court. Make peace the court As junior council my submission for the second claim concerning the withdrawal payment in the amount of 2.5 million solid I will consist of two main points Firstly, we will argue that in contrast to the plaintiff's submission the withdrawal has been ineffective Secondly, we will content that the claim for withdrawal payment is unjustly made and that a sum in particular is horrendous Your excellencies by looking at Pactum do Zetanicum it appears quite clear that for the withdrawal to become effective the withdrawing member has to send his written renunciation to every other member of the sokietas Furthermore, the Pactum states that only after the receipt of those letters by every sokius the withdrawal process would start These criteria though have not been fulfilled not every member of the sokietas received the notice Iborreos, the president of the management committee obviously didn't receive one So the receipt for all the members has in contrast to what my learned friend of the plaintiff has said happened, never happened and according to the Pactum Zetanicum the withdrawal process could therefore not even have started Mr Boris has shown copy of the notice You've seen the notice, what's the problem? I've got a question my lord it is true that Iborreos was shown a copy by Midyulans but we contend that this does not suffice as received such as the Pactum demands On page 12 in your authorities your excellencies will find the text of the digest 22.4.2 which explicitly states the origin is essential whereas a copy is worthless in comparison to what we have in people's treasury Are we dealing with that sort of case? Thank you for the question my lord we submit that the authority level of the whole sokietas over one person over one sokius, which is Britannicus and the authority level of the fiscals can be compared to But aren't we dealing with the text of the contract literous where we're writing, is this the contract? This is why we draw an analogy too but consensual contracts are completely different why should we draw that analogy? Because we can compare the authority level of a fiscals and a whole sokietas Okay, what about the rationale given for a vexatius document is not regarded as family legal proceeding so are you calling this copy vexatius? Well, in the few of Britannicus we can call it vexatius Just because he doesn't like it? No, because the withdrawal has been ineffective It's only effective when we review vexatius and it's an exact copy of what your client wrote so how could this be vexatius? Yeah, but it's just a copy and not the original as the pectin vexatian states It doesn't say that but of course it's original Well, it says that the receipt of the notice the notice in the sentence before a notice inviting to each of the other members which means that the notice has to be written from by Britannicus and after receipt of the notice so they explicitly state that it must be written by the person in person so you cannot use a slave or someone else to write it for you Well, Britannicus could of course told his slave to write it but then it would be a mandator But where does it say that he has to write it himself? It says the notice inviting It says a member of the group who wishes to withdraw can do so by notice inviting to each of the other members which means that the member who wants to withdraw which is Britannicus has to write by notice to the other members Is it your claim that it will rather send to Mediolanus or is there is no proof that it will send to a lawyer? I mean it is stated that the notice the copy of the notice will send to Mediolanus the one sent to a lawyer so are you stating that it should have been addressed specifically to a lawyer is that your claim? Well, there was a notice sent to Ivorius but the notice got destroyed So that is your claim that he himself never had been Exactly But do you have standing to bring forth such a claim? I mean in my view if anyone could bring this play stating that I didn't have the notice it would be Ivorius because he would be interested in that party Can your client bring forth this argument? Well Ivorius hasn't received the notice and it says that the receipt of the notice which begins But who has the interest to bring this before the court? Britannicus because I think it's Ivorius, not? You mean because it would be convenient the whiff-troll should be ineffective So thank you for your question my lady there might be the case but not that the attention or will or the wish of Britannicus is insignificant since the wording of Tepactum is very clear the whiff-troll process and hence the effectiveness of the whiff-troll rely on the receipt of this written notice May I In addition it has to be mentioned that Ivorius as president of the management committee should be especially well aware of the rules and criteria for whiff-troll To oppose Malone's print for the plaintiff is our submission that Britannicus certainly did not violate the interdiction of the veneere contrafactum popium since he rightly claimed the ineffectiveness the moment he found out about the destruction of the notice Additionally in contrast to Malone's print of the plaintiff said the purpose of the pactum is not stated in the fact anywhere by saying the purpose of the pactum was filled in defining said purpose to his advantage the plaintiff pursues to know the will of all the other parties who agreed to this pactum because I have to come back to your veneere contrafactum popium argument in the libelus in number 6 Britannicus is now unsure of whether the plaintiff would agree to the group and only afterwards the dissent that he discovers that his manager a messenger did not deliver his message so wasn't there a change of mind before he finally got grounds maybe Thank you for the question Malone we submit that there is a difference between being not sure about the whiff-troll or deciding explicitly we argue that it says explicitly and without any ambiguity a notice must be written sent and received by all other members your excellencies we submit that according to the facts this never happened and therefore the whiff-troll could never have been effective lastly my lords and lady there's one more notion concerning the ineffectiveness of the whiff-troll we want to bring before this quote we submit that since there has been no effective whiff-troll therefore sure cannot be a demand for whiff-troll be because the whiff-troll procedure cannot heal the missing whiff-troll to conclude to demand any sum as a whiff-troll payment from botanicus would not only be unjust but legally impossible since his whiff-troll was clearly not effective Mo Aua we submit that the sum itself is a great injustice to what the Sokiatas stands for the Bono Fides as the facts state the Sokiatas runs a very large bank and is therefore obligated to keep the books in an orderly manner to support this notion maybe refer your excellencies to page 14 in your authorities where you will find the taxes of the ditches 2.13.4 the Sokiatas neglected this responsibility when looking at the facts in the case which cannot be to pretend any cause disadvantage Mo Aua our partnership implies in the sense a lot of brotherhood as Mo Aua friend of the plaintiff already said on page 12 in your authorities according to digest 17.2.63 which is why it would have been the truly candid behaviour from the other members to intact botanicus when you joined the group in economic doings and in the existence of those large loans receiving important information about the group's transactions can be absolutely essential additionally we can tell in contrast to what Mo Aua friend of the plaintiff said that the novella 136.4 is to be applied to our case which you will find also on page 13 in our authorities since it explicitly states that a person interest rate can be demanded even if no interest rate has been specified we can apply this novella perfectly to our case since the group has a bank and fulfills the task of the bank excuse me but this sort of refers to when the interest is not specified not to where you have an agreement to the opposition which is our case well the novella 136.4 says the bankers are allowed to the law permits the bankers are allowed to demand 8% interest rate even though it hasn't been stipulated which means that it has the same outcome when there is no rate specified as it is in our case the law permits it but it doesn't demand it but it's the maximum of the 8% and can I we've got two more minutes to make it cheaper from the time bearing in mind that we are confronted with a large bank you can only come to the conclusion that it would be in the best interest of this bank to receive the possible maximum interest rate when giving out large loans and to support this notion we would also like to direct your lord and late ship's attention to what Paula states Paula states that the partnership has to foremost act in its own best interest which would be in our case giving out loans with interest as opposed to interest free loans these loans are made in the year 546 yes which is one year after the partnership forms yes what if the bank didn't exist within the first year of partnership thank you for the question my lord we can see in the fact that there is a bank and that the bank probably belongs to the so-called test because in 564 we can see in the second paragraph including the running of a large bank it doesn't state that after 20 years that loans are made exactly thank you for the remark the paragraph 2 just can I go on just says that running of a large bank not that it started that the Tsukiata started to run a large bank so isn't it 565 that specifically says that the bank can make a number of very large loans so we know it is a bank isn't 565 the project that it is a bank you would have to go further too well it says here it is a bank but I just wanted to emphasise again that here it also states that the Tsukiata has run a large bank that's what I wanted to do so to conclude the withdrawal payment could only ever amount to 2.25 million Solidae for the sole reason that the withdrawal payment has to be calculated on a basis that those loans are interest-bearing and that there can be any further assistance those are all my submissions May it please the court first of all we would like to refer to the defendant's allegation that the arbitration was not in conformity with the judgement of a good man the text 3 of the defendant's source sheet on page 4 actually refers to the case where deals with the case of deciding about the shares of the Soci in the Tsukiata it is a question of formation of the contracts and not a question like the one we have at hand of one member withdrawing I would like to draw your lordship's attention to text 9 and 10 of the P1 source sheet from my learned colleague you may see in this text that arbitration shall be respected even when it is unfair so the properness of the arbitration does not regard the substance of the arbitration it rather regards the persons of the arbitrators and as my learned colleague said the parties here choose the best arbitrage as possible they choose former members which had a knowledge of the Tsukiata and its functioning and were best suited for ruling such a case yes the members of the committee who gave this large amount of loans to its friends and have them asked them back for the past few years yes my lady it is true but this was not the question at hand in arbitration the question was rather the effectivity of the notice for now the gangers wouldn't need to pay these loans as well he would have to pay this amount but it is a consequence of his own will to withdraw from the group and moreover as he has not has not complained about choice of arbitration before he has only himself to blame now for choosing these arbitrators as you may have seen in text 10 now relating to the allegation of the defendant that the interest rate could not be of 0% because this would not be in the best interest of the Tsukiata we would like to draw your attention on the circumstance that Britannicus was not yet a member of the Tsukiata at that time he is not entitled to judge the best interest of the Tsukiata our submission is that these loans could have been granted because at that time it was necessary to strengthen a relation with third parties to attract new investors these loans were granted at the very beginning of the Tsukiata so our submission is that the defendant I'm sorry my time is up may I just conclude our submission is that the defendant's allegation on this point are not grounded if I may be of no further assistance thank you thank you councillor thank you councillors stay in your lighting route you too thank you