Did the queen breach Rumpelstiltskin's contract?
Debate Rounds (1)
This is not a case of "breach of contract", this is a clear case of a young girl in a desperate situation. She made a decision that did not only save her life but her families" as well. Would you have not made the same decision? She had already given away two of her most valued possessions and had nothing left to give so agreed to the deal not knowing she would have a child nor marry the king. The Queen after all did fulfil the escape clause, and did guess the name of the wood elf. There were no set rules as to how she could guess or if anyone could help her guess.
The woodsman gave evidence early to say he was offered a reward to find the name of the wood elf. If you were in the situation of the Queen and King would you not have done the same? To keep their child they would have done anything, and they did. The woodsman while out in the woods came across a small wood elf dancing and singing his name. He did not "spy" on Mr Stiltskin as the defence claim he was simply out doing his job and chanced upon him.
The next testimony you, the jury heard was from Mrs I.M Caring. I would like to simple say that there was a clear bias towards my client, no advantages to living in a castle were even mentioned showing an obvious distain towards my client. Mrs I.M Caring"s former employment and relationship to the King has resulted in a biased testimony and has given us a one sided story on the most important issue, the child"s safety. I would suggest that the jury disregard the testimony of Mrs Caring and only know that both parties would be suitable to raising this child. I would also wish that you ask yourself why the defence needed this witness. You can tell they knew they would lose why else would you risk your case and professional opinion. Let"s face it the only witness the defence have that gave evidence towards their case was Mr Stiltskin himself.
The king came to the stand next and told us that he is the father of the child and never gave his consent for his child to be given away. This is a breach of his parental rights and just from this evidence the contract should be voided. Not only did the king provide us with this vital piece of evidence but his reaction to the questioning told us he would be willing to give back all the gold to keep his baby girl.
I know now after reviewing all the evidence that you will make the right decision and vote not guilty and keep this child with its natural parents. The Queen has done nothing wrong and only did what she did to survive and keep her family alive. So vote not guilty and keep this family together!
The defence is arguing that the Queen did not breach her contract. This is completely ridiculous as it is obvious that the Queen did just that! The defence may state that it was completely innocent to have the woodsman spy on my client, however, that itself could be considered an offence! The woodsman did not become known to my client and invaded his privacy by spying.
When being questioned, the Queen stated that she was just a poor child in a bad situation, her family was in danger and she didn"t believe she would ever have children. This is absolutely preposterous! The Queen obviously had intentions of marrying the king and that obviously means that she was expected to have at least one child! That child would become the successor to the throne. The Queen honestly couldn"t admit that she didn"t suspect that she would not bear a child of the kings, as it is what is expected from any queen.
The defences 2nd witness, The King indicated that he did not give consent for the giving away of his child. Nevertheless, everyone knows of the Kings hunger for gold and THAT is the only reason for marrying The Queen. We all know that if the King was in the same position as the Queen was, than he too would have given away his first born child in exchange for a life full of riches.
My client, Rumplestiltskin, was honourably helping the Queen, whom he found crying over the fact that she could not spin the straw to gold. Rumplestiltskin offered to help the Queen in exchange for a payment of some sort. The Queen was able to pay on the first two occasions, however, once the third time came around she found she couldn"t pay. My client, being the kind wood elf he is, offered a compromise that the Queen was glad to accept. The only way the Queen could escape this arrangement was to guess my clients name. What did she do though? She sent a woodsman to SPY on my client, invading Rumplestiltskin"s privacy, whom, upon finding my client in the woods, NEVER announced his presence!
We saw Mrs. I.M.Caring, a social worker, today during the case. She stated that Rumplestiltskin could supply a good, caring home for the child. He lives in a good ennviroment and the fresh air would be great for the child, so I ask you this".what is the problem with sending the child to live with my client?
I beg our incredible Jury not fall for any tricks that the defence may pull. We ask for a verdict of guilty.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.