EXAMPLE — Did Park breach Article I of the Roommate Accord by leaving thirteen (13) plates in the sink for four (4) consecutive days?

on the matter of "EXAMPLE — The Roommate Accord of Rivera & Park" · № MIO-2026-W4ZQVM

— Verdict of the public —

Respondent at fault

Recommended consequence: Two (2) consecutive weeks of dishes duty

Tallied from 25 votes. Non-binding parody — for entertainment purposes only.

⚖

— The Magistrate's opinion · non-binding —

EXAMPLE — Thirteen plates sat in the sink for ninety-six hours; Article I permits relocation after twelve. The respondent concedes the count but disputes that the relocation remedy is self-executing.

The crux — Whether Article I's twelve-hour rule operates automatically or requires the aggrieved party to give notice first.

Leaning: respondent at fault

— The tally —

25 votes

Ji-Won Park · 64%

Camila Rivera · 28%

No fault · 8%

— The record —

Petitioner · Camila Rivera · opening

EXAMPLE STATEMENT — Article I states plainly: dishes left in the sink for greater than twelve (12) hours may be relocated. Thirteen (13) plates accumulated over ninety-six (96) hours. The Accord was breached not in spirit but in the literal twelve-hour count. I have photographs.

Respondent · Ji-Won Park · opening

EXAMPLE STATEMENT — I do not contest the count. I do contest the relocation provision being interpreted as automatic; I had a deadline at work, the dishes are not yet rotting. The petitioner could have, in good faith, said something. I would not have noticed for another day.

Officially official per this platform. Non-binding parody. Not legally enforceable. Don't sue your friends.