Lawsuit: Adjourned Dodrio3 v. Block D'Infusion [2024] FCR 69

[Meowow55]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION

Dodrio3 (Represented by Dragon Law)
Plaintiff

V.

Bloc D’Infusion
Defendant

COMPLAINT
On the 21st of December, 2023, Dodrio3 and Bloc D’Infusion reached an agreement–Dodrio3 would forward $25,000 in return for $3,000/month (excluding the first one of $1,500). Over the next months, no money was returned to Dodrio3’s account. Acting as if distressed, the representative of Bloc D’Infusion then pleaded to trade the skyscraper in return for the loan being canceled. Yet again, this is yet to have happened after over a month, and Dodrio3 has been forced to turn to the courts to get his rightful property.


I.PARTIES
1. Dodrio3 (Plaintiff)
2. Bloc D’Infusion (Defendant)

II.FACTS
Dodrio3 agreed to loan $25,000 to Bloc D’Infusion on the 21st of December, 2023 in return for it being paid by installments of $3,000/month with the exception of a $1,500 at first, as well as a 20% interest rate per month Dodrio3 paid Bubblybo $25,000 for the agreement (Bubblybo agreed on behalf of Bloc D’Infusion, and at the time, was the sole stakeholder) Bubblybo agreed to forward a skyscraper to pay off the loan, However the loan is yet to be paid and the skyscraper is yet to be forwarded.

III.CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
Based on Exhibit A, it’s clear that Bloc D’Infusion agreed to pay $1,500 in the first month, $3,000 in the second, $3,000 in the third, etc. until the $25,000 was paid, as well as interest, (bringing it up to $30,000), Yet this amount hasn’t been paid Based on Exhibit B, it’s clear that Bubblybo, on behalf of Bloc D’Infusion, agreed to forward a skyscraper to Dodrio3 which would cancel the debt, yet this skyscraper is yet to be forwarded Dodrio3 hasn’t been able to do what he wishes with either a skyscraper or the $30,000 owed and has lost the chance to grow both monetary values These malicious actions taken against my client deserve punishment, and punitive actions like this must be punished.

IV.PRAYERS FOR RELIEF
1. $31,250 in compensatory damages for the unpaid loan, one month of unpaid interest, and the inability to use the money that could’ve been gained from payment of the loan to increase monetary gain.
2. $10,000 in punitive damages
3. $12,375 in legal fees

Spoiler: Exhibit A

Spoiler: Exhibit B

By making this submission, I agree I understand the penalties of lying in court and the fact that I am subject to perjury should I knowingly make a false statement in court.
DATED: This 8th of May, 2024

 

[MrFluffy2U94]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
WRIT OF SUMMONS

@Bubblybo is required to appear before the Federal Court in the case of Dodrio3 v. Block D'Infusion.

Failure to appear within 72 hours of this summons will result in a default judgement based on the known facts of the case.

Both parties should make themselves aware of the Court Rules and Procedures, including the option of an in-game trial should both parties request one.​

 

[Meowow55]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
WRIT OF SUMMONS

@Bubblybo is required to appear before the Federal Court in the case of Dodrio3 v. Block D'Infusion.

Failure to appear within 72 hours of this summons will result in a default judgement based on the known facts of the case.

Both parties should make themselves aware of the Court Rules and Procedures, including the option of an in-game trial should both parties request one.​

Your Honor, the defendant has failed to appear.

 

[MrFluffy2U94]

Seeing as how the defendant has not appeared as summoned, the court will enter recess pending a verdict via summary judgment.

 

[MrFluffy2U94]

Verdict

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
VERDICT
Dodrio3 v. Block D'Infusion [2024] FCR 69

I. PLAINTIFF'S POSITION
1. The plaintiff asserts that the defendant entered into a contract and has breached its terms by not making the agreed upon payments.

II. DEFENDANT'S POSITION
1. The defendant did not appear after a summons was issued.

III. THE COURT OPINION
1. When determining if a contract was breached or not the "" asserts that the following 6 criteria must be met : offer, acceptance, consideration, intent and capacity.

Offer - the loan is clearly offered by the plaintiff : a $25,000 loan in exchange for equity and repayment.

Acceptance - The defendant clearly accepted the loan in exhibit A.

Consideration - There is a clear and concise consideration, laying out the expectations.

Intent - Both parties clearly had the intent to perform this transaction, as cash was exchanged and the skyscraper purchased.

Capacity - Per the /db list command in game, itsjb293 is the owner of BlockDInfusion and therefore has capacity to participate in the loan, and the plaintiff clearly had the capacity and capital to participate as well.

Therefore all of the criteria of the contract is met.

IV. DECISION
Deciding that this is a legal contract, we now must assess the prayer for relief.

1. Compensatory Damages - Due to the lack of clarity in the loan, this court will not be granting compensatory damages beyond the original amount of capital loaned. The loan specifies that payments must be made monthly, but does not specify a timeframe in which interest will accrue, simply stating "interest will accrue at a rate of 20%." This could be per month, per minute, or per millenia, therefore we cannot calculate how much interest the plaintiff lost out on.

This court will grant the plaintiff the repayment of the original loaned $25,000.

2. Punitive Damages - These are defined as "damages awarded against a person to punish them for their outrageous conduct and to deter them and others like them from similar conduct in the future". Typically, these take the form of penalties written into a contract for breaching the contract. I see no reason to enforce any punitive damages, and apparently the plaintiff and their council don't either, as they did not write any clauses into the contract, nor provide justification for this amount they requested.

This court will not grant any punitive damages.

3. Legal fees - Legal fees are capped at $5,000 or 30% of the case value, whichever is higher. This is a cap, or a maximum value. Seeing as how this case went to summary judgment and little time was required by the plaintiffs council, this court feels that 15% is more appropriate.

This court awards the plaintiff $3,750 for legal fees.

The Federal thanks all involved.