A desperate agreement leads to a question of justice versus the letter of the law.
A blight destroyed Greenhaven's harvest.
The villagers signed a contract with Lord Valerius for food.
The contract obligates them to give Valerius 50% of their harvest for 10 years.
The farmers now claim the contract is exploitative.
Lord Valerius argues that he took a significant risk by providing the food. He claims the contract is a legally binding agreement and that he is entitled to his due. He points out that he saved the village from certain starvation and that his terms, while strict, are a just reward for his investment. He argues that to invalidate the contract would be to undermine the very foundation of law and commerce in the kingdom.
The farmers argue that the contract was signed under duress. They claim that Lord Valerius exploited their desperation to trap them in a decade of servitude. They contend that while they are grateful for the food, the terms of the contract are so severe that they will be unable to feed their own families or invest in their farms. They ask you, Your Majesty, to intervene and set a more equitable arrangement, arguing that justice should not be blind to the circumstances of an agreement.
Your Majesty, you are asked to rule on a matter where law and morality are in conflict. Do you uphold the sanctity of a legally binding contract, even if it leads to a harsh outcome? Or do you intervene to create a more just result, potentially setting a precedent that could destabilize future agreements?
We can't find the internet
Attempting to reconnect
Something went wrong!
Attempting to reconnect