Lawsuit: Pending Raz0Baz0 v. vishy1x [2025] DCR 92

[Vennefly]

Case Filing

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


Raz0Baz0 (represented by MZLD)
Plaintiff

v.

vishy1x
Defendant


COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

Defendant won an Auction held by Plaintiff for an amount of R$14,000, forming a Contract between Plaintiff and Defendant. Defendant subsequently failed to uphold his end of the Agreement by failing to pay the agreed amount.

I. PARTIES
1. Raz0Baz0 (Plaintiff)
2. vishy1x (Defendant)

II. FACTS

1. On 28 October 2025 at 23:56 (GMT+1), Plaintiff posted an Auction selling a Recreation of Edvard Munch's "The Scream" to the #marketplace channel in the DemocracyCraft Discord (P-001).
2. The Auction was to run for 48 hours from the moment of posting (P-001).
3. On 29 October 2025 at 21:51 (GMT+1), Defendant placed a bid of R$14,000 (P-002).
4. No further bids were received, and on 30 October at 23:56 (GMT+1) the Auction concluded, with the Defendant having the highest bid, winning the Auction (P-002).
5. On 1 November 2025 from 23:25 (GMT+1) onwards, Plaintiff's counsel and Defendant were in touch through Discord after Defendant had let Plaintiff know he wanted to pay through Volt, trying to arrange payment (P-003).
6. During this conversation, Defendant sent Plaintiff's counsel a screenshot showing a withdrawal from Volt bank by him for an amount of R40,000, promising to pay Plaintiff after this withdrawal processes (P-003).
7. In actual fact, when Defendant promised this, he had already won two DCT auctions for plots r034 and r049. At the time, he still had to pay for these plots, with amounts totalling exactly R$40,000 (P-004 and P-005).
8. On 1 November 2025, Defendant held an in-game balance of R$1,100 (P-006).
9. Defendant must then have received the R$40,000 withdrawal at some point between 1 November 2025 and 3 November 2025, because on 3 November 2025 he was fined a total of R$40,000 for plots r034 and r049 (P-004 and P-005).
10. On 10 November 2025, Plaintiff's counsel, having not yet received payment, reminded Defendant of their arrangement, but received no response (P-007).
11. On 15 November 2025, Defendant still holds an in-game balance of R1,100 (P-008).
12. As of the filing of this suit, no payment has been received from Defendant.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. Breach of Contract
Through bidding on Plaintiff's auction and winning the auction, a Contract was formed between Plaintiff and Defendant. According to Section 4(2) of the Contracts Act, the formation of a Contract requires:

1. An Offer, in this case the Defendant offered R$14,000 in exchange for Plaintiff's painting by posting the message reading "14k" to the Auction thread (P-002).
2. Acceptance, the Plaintiff accepted Defendant's offer by announcing him as the winner of the Auction (P-002).
3. Consideration, it is clear that there is an exchange of value between parties, consisting of the exchange of a painting for money.
4. Intent, the actions of both parties in the auction thread (P-001 and P-002) clearly demonstrate the intent of both parties to come to an exchange of the painting for an amount of R$14,000. In the conversation between Plaintiff's counsel and Defendant, Defendant further confirms this (P-003).
5. Capacity, each Party had the Capacity to enter into such a Contract.

By not paying Plaintiff the R$14,000 he is owed, Defendant failed to fulfil his Contractual Obligations and thereby caused a Breach of Contract pursuant Section 7(1) of the Contracts Act. Under paragraph (a) of this subsection, specific performance is determined to be one of the available remedies for a Breach of Contract.

2. Outrageous Conduct
Early on after winning the Auction, Plaintiff's counsel and Defendant were in touch to discuss the payment for this auction. During this conversation, Defendant showed Plaintiff's counsel a screenshot showing a withdrawal made by Defendant from Volt Bank, Inc., promising payment after this had been processed (P-003). Not only did Defendant then not keep his promise again: Plaintiff knowingly and intentionally lied to Plaintiff's counsel, as these funds were already destined to pay for plots r034 and r049, amounting to exactly the withdrawn R$40,000 (P-004 and P-005).

Even after further reminder by Plaintiff's counsel (P-007), Defendant has not paid. Instead, Defendant chose to prolong the deception, remaining silent. Such conduct goes far beyond mere breach of contract or ordinary neglect. Defendant demonstrated a willingness to mislead, and to obstruct the ordinary and fair dealings expected within this community. This was a calculated act designed to lull Plaintiff into inaction and to evade accountability. Such a deliberate fabrication, made to counsel during what was supposed to be a routine post-auction settlement, is "completely indecent, totally atrocious, and fully intolerable in a civilized community," as is the standard for Outrageous Conduct defined in Lightiago v. FuriousPaladin [2023] SCR 20. It shows a disregard not only for the Plaintiff's rights, but also for the integrity of the economic system upon which all participants in this server rely.

Furthermore, Defendant’s continued refusal to rectify the situation, even after being given multiple opportunities and reminders, reflects a sustained pattern of intentional misconduct. At no point did Defendant attempt to correct the alleged misrepresentation, communicate any legitimate obstacle to payment, or demonstrate good-faith effort to resolve the matter. Instead, Defendant persisted in withholding payment, forcing Plaintiff to resort to litigation simply to secure what he was rightfully owed. Taken together, Defendant’s actions constitute a level of deception, manipulation, and disregard for community norms that transcends ordinary wrongdoing. Plaintiff therefore submits that the Defendant’s conduct qualifies as outrageous under the governing legal standard. Thus, pursuant to Section 5(1)(a) of the Legal Damages Act, punitive damages are warranted to deter such behaviour and to reaffirm the expectation of honesty and fair dealing within this community.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:

1. Performance of Defendant's obligations under the Contract, consisting of payment of an amount of R$14,000 to Plaintiff.​

2. Either:​

a. Punitive Damages in the amount of R$28,000 for Defendant's Outrageous Conduct, pursuant to Section 5 of the Legal Damages Act, or alternatively—​

b. Nominal Damages in the amount of R$7,500, pursuant to Section 6 of the Legal Damages Act, whichever results in higher total damages being awarded.​

3. Legal fees amounting to 30% of the Case Value, pursuant to Section 9 of the Legal Damages Act.​

4. A Court Order ordering the Department of Homeland Security to seize and liquidate any Property owned by Defendant up to the amount awarded by this Court in order to execute the Court's Verdict. This includes, in no particular order:​

a. Cash held in balance;​

b. Plots;​

c. The contents of Defendant's Inventory, Enderchest and Supporter Chest;​

d. Cash held in any Financial Institution within Redmont.​

V. EVIDENCE

Spoiler: P-001

Spoiler: P-002

Spoiler: P-003

Spoiler: P-004

Spoiler: P-005

Spoiler: P-006

Message was censored due to attorney-client privilege, but the relevant evidence and timestamp is clearly visible.

Spoiler: P-007

Spoiler: P-008

Spoiler: Proof of representation

VI. WITNESSES
No witnesses.

VII. DECLARATION AND SIGNATURE
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 16th day of November 2025.

 

[dearev]

Writ of Summons

@vishy1x, is required to appear before the District Court in the case of Raz0Baz0 v. vishy1x [2025] DCR 92

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.

 

[Vennefly]

Your Honour,

I have been a little too specific in my Prayers for Relief, causing an unnecessary burden on the Defendant and the Department of Homeland Security if granted in full. I would therefore like to amend the Fourth Prayer for Relief, substituting "This includes, in this order:" with "This includes, in no particular order:"

If it pleases the Court, may I please have Your Honour's permission to make this change?

Respectfully filed,
Vennefly (MZLD).

 

[dearev]

Your Honour,

I have been a little too specific in my Prayers for Relief, causing an unnecessary burden on the Defendant and the Department of Homeland Security if granted in full. I would therefore like to amend the Fourth Prayer for Relief, substituting "This includes, in this order:" with "This includes, in no particular order:"

If it pleases the Court, may I please have Your Honour's permission to make this change?

Respectfully filed,
Vennefly (MZLD).

You may.

 

[dearev]

Defendant has failed to appear. A public defender shall be called.

 

[Vennefly]

Your Honour,

The Plaintiff has found conclusive evidence solving the mystery of the “missing” R$40K. The Plaintiff would like to request the leave of this Honourable Court to amend the Complaint to reflect these facts completely and to add supporting evidence.

Respectfully submitted,
Vennefly (MZLD).

 

[Superwoops]

Good morning, I am here representing the Defendant as the PD.

 

[dearev]

Your Honour,

The Plaintiff has found conclusive evidence solving the mystery of the “missing” R$40K. The Plaintiff would like to request the leave of this Honourable Court to amend the Complaint to reflect these facts completely and to add supporting evidence.

Respectfully submitted,
Vennefly (MZLD).

You may

Good morning, I am here representing the Defendant as the PD.

Please present an answer within 48 hours

 

[Superwoops]

Your honour, I am requesting a 48-hour extension due to IRL circumstances and trying to contact my client.

 

[Vennefly]

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION FOR EMERGENCY INJUNCTION

Your Honour,

A few days ago, all plots owned by the Defendant were evicted by the Commonwealth for inactivity: r034, r049, r129, c355, c549, c626. This means that, in short order, these plots will be auctioned off to the highest bidder, and the revenue generated from this will be deposited into Defendant's balance.

If Defendant obtains free access to these funds, he could easily spend or transfer the money before Plaintiff can enforce any judgment. If that happens, Defendant would have no remaining assets for Plaintiff to recover against. Plaintiff is actively pursuing payment in the underlying case, but if Defendant receives the auction proceeds and is free to use them immediately, he could quickly make himself judgment-proof.

This creates a direct and immediate risk of irreparable harm. Once the funds are gone, they cannot realistically be recovered, and any judgment in Plaintiff's favour would be meaningless. An emergency injunction is therefore necessary to prevent the Defendant from defeating the Court's ability to grant effective relief.

The Plaintiff will therefore request that the process of auctioning these plots will continue, but that the funds (up to the maximum requested amount in this case) will be held in Government Escrow until such time as this procedure concludes. This ensures speed and efficiency in getting these plots back on the market, and represents the minimally restrictive measure necessary to protect Plaintiff's interests.

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff respectfully requests an Emergency Injunction wherein:

1. The Department of Construction and Transportation is ORDERED to continue the auction procedure of plots r034, r049, r129, c355, c549 and c626;
2. The Department of Construction and Transportation is ORDERED to withhold an amount of R$54,600 from the auction proceeds of these plots and keep this in Government Escrow until such time as the instant litigation concludes.

Respectfully submitted,
Vennefly (MZLD).

 

[Superwoops]

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION FOR EMERGENCY INJUNCTION

Your Honour,

A few days ago, all plots owned by the Defendant were evicted by the Commonwealth for inactivity: r034, r049, r129, c355, c549, c626. This means that, in short order, these plots will be auctioned off to the highest bidder, and the revenue generated from this will be deposited into Defendant's balance.

If Defendant obtains free access to these funds, he could easily spend or transfer the money before Plaintiff can enforce any judgment. If that happens, Defendant would have no remaining assets for Plaintiff to recover against. Plaintiff is actively pursuing payment in the underlying case, but if Defendant receives the auction proceeds and is free to use them immediately, he could quickly make himself judgment-proof.

This creates a direct and immediate risk of irreparable harm. Once the funds are gone, they cannot realistically be recovered, and any judgment in Plaintiff's favour would be meaningless. An emergency injunction is therefore necessary to prevent the Defendant from defeating the Court's ability to grant effective relief.

The Plaintiff will therefore request that the process of auctioning these plots will continue, but that the funds (up to the maximum requested amount in this case) will be held in Government Escrow until such time as this procedure concludes. This ensures speed and efficiency in getting these plots back on the market, and represents the minimally restrictive measure necessary to protect Plaintiff's interests.

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff respectfully requests an Emergency Injunction wherein:

1. The Department of Construction and Transportation is ORDERED to continue the auction procedure of plots r034, r049, r129, c355, c549 and c626;
2. The Department of Construction and Transportation is ORDERED to withhold an amount of R$54,600 from the auction proceeds of these plots and keep this in Government Escrow until such time as the instant litigation concludes.

Respectfully submitted,
Vennefly (MZLD).

May the Defense respond?

 

[dearev]

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION FOR EMERGENCY INJUNCTION

Your Honour,

A few days ago, all plots owned by the Defendant were evicted by the Commonwealth for inactivity: r034, r049, r129, c355, c549, c626. This means that, in short order, these plots will be auctioned off to the highest bidder, and the revenue generated from this will be deposited into Defendant's balance.

If Defendant obtains free access to these funds, he could easily spend or transfer the money before Plaintiff can enforce any judgment. If that happens, Defendant would have no remaining assets for Plaintiff to recover against. Plaintiff is actively pursuing payment in the underlying case, but if Defendant receives the auction proceeds and is free to use them immediately, he could quickly make himself judgment-proof.

This creates a direct and immediate risk of irreparable harm. Once the funds are gone, they cannot realistically be recovered, and any judgment in Plaintiff's favour would be meaningless. An emergency injunction is therefore necessary to prevent the Defendant from defeating the Court's ability to grant effective relief.

The Plaintiff will therefore request that the process of auctioning these plots will continue, but that the funds (up to the maximum requested amount in this case) will be held in Government Escrow until such time as this procedure concludes. This ensures speed and efficiency in getting these plots back on the market, and represents the minimally restrictive measure necessary to protect Plaintiff's interests.

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff respectfully requests an Emergency Injunction wherein:

1. The Department of Construction and Transportation is ORDERED to continue the auction procedure of plots r034, r049, r129, c355, c549 and c626;
2. The Department of Construction and Transportation is ORDERED to withhold an amount of R$54,600 from the auction proceeds of these plots and keep this in Government Escrow until such time as the instant litigation concludes.

Respectfully submitted,
Vennefly (MZLD).

May the Defense respond?

you may, for the time being injuction is GRANTED until a response is filed.

Your honour, I am requesting a 48-hour extension due to IRL circumstances and trying to contact my client.

Granted.

 

[Superwoops]

Your honour,

We move for the EI to be modified as to only hold $14,000 in government escrow until this case is resolved, which corresponds to the compensatory damages asked for by the Plaintiff.

If this EI were to be granted, it could set a dangerous precedent where any Plaintiff may request an EI for the full damages requested extending beyond compensatory*, however absurd they may be, and have a client's assets frozen for an arbitrary amount, which violates my client's right to unreasonable search or seizure and my client's right not to be deprived of liberty; that is, liberty to one's assets.

* This is the case because the LDA does not cap punitive damages.

Thank you.

 

[Superwoops]

Answer to Complaint

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT


Raz0Baz0 (represented by MZLD)
Plaintiff


v.


vishy1x
Defendant



I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

1. AFFIRMS that on 28 October 2025 at 23:56 (GMT+1), Plaintiff posted an Auction selling a Recreation of Edvard Munch's "The Scream" to the #marketplace channel in the DemocracyCraft Discord (P-001).
2. AFFIRMS that The Auction was to run for 48 hours from the moment of posting (P-001).
3. AFFIRMS that on 29 October 2025 at 21:51 (GMT+1), Defendant placed a bid of R$14,000 (P-002).
4. DENIES that no further bids were received, and on 30 October at 23:56 (GMT+1) the Auction concluded, with the Defendant having the highest bid, winning the Auction (P-002). My client did not win the auction.
5. AFFIRMS that on 1 November 2025 from 23:25 (GMT+1) onwards, Plaintiff's counsel and Defendant were in touch through Discord after Defendant had let Plaintiff know he wanted to pay through Volt, trying to arrange payment (P-003).
6. DENIES that during this conversation, Defendant sent Plaintiff's counsel a screenshot showing a withdrawal from Volt bank by him for an amount of R40,000, promising to pay Plaintiff after this withdrawal processes (P-003). The screenshot does not show my client promising to do anything.
7. NEITHER AFFIRMS NOR DENIES that in actual fact, when Defendant promised this, he had already won two DCT auctions for plots r034 and r049. At the time, he still had to pay for these plots, with amounts totalling exactly R$40,000 (P-004 and P-005).
8. AFFIRMS that on 1 November 2025, Defendant held an in-game balance of R$1,100 (P-006).
9. NEITHER AFFIRMS NOR DENIES that Defendant must then have received the R$40,000 withdrawal at some point between 1 November 2025 and 3 November 2025, because on 3 November 2025 he was fined a total of R$40,000 for plots r034 and r049 (P-004 and P-005).
10. AFFIRMS that on 10 November 2025, Plaintiff's counsel, having not yet received payment, reminded Defendant of their arrangement, but received no response (P-007).
11. AFFIRMS that on 15 November 2025, Defendant still holds an in-game balance of R1,100 (P-008).
12. AFFIRMS that as of the filing of this suit, no payment has been received from Defendant.


II. DEFENCES


1. Lawsuit: Adjourned - Bombaz2005 v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2024] FCR 78 affirms that, for an auction to be valid as a contract, it must follow departmental auction policy, otherwise the bid is invalid. The DOC's auction policy states that "(5) Bidders may not bid more than the total funds currently available in their personal, company, or bank balances." My client is a new player, with not even 2 hours of playtime, therefore it is reasonable to conclude that his balance did not reach the value of the bid at the time of the auction, rendering his bid invalid, and making him not the winner of the auction. Therefore, the contract is void, supported by facts 8 and 11. (D-001)(D-002)

2. The Defendant has less than 2h of playtime (D-001). This conveys a lack of capacity on the Defendant's side, supported by the Act of Congress - Contracts Act - 4(e), and upheld by Lawsuit: Adjourned - Dimitre977 v. kesballo [2025] FCR 6, which states that "[...] any new player who has not yet accumulated legally active playtime and enters into a contract that would harm their starting balance; lacks the capacity to do so." Since legally active playtime is generally considered to be six hours, my client is well below that and, as such, the contract is invalid and unenforceable.​

DATED: This 23rd day of November 2025.

 

[Superwoops]

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO DISMISS

The defence moves that the complaint in this case be dismissed, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:

1. Information - Court Rules and Procedures - Rule 5.5 (Lack of claim). There cannot exist a contract claim due to a lack of capacity to enter a contract on my client's side. In Lawsuit: Adjourned - Dimitre977 v. kesballo [2025] FCR 6, the Defendant had much more playtime than my client (over 4 hours) and even then, the contract was declared null. This case cannot be described as anything more than a frivolous filing from opposing counsel and the Court should see it as a complete waste of its time. It has been proven time and time again that players with low playtime cannot enter contracts.

2. Information - Court Rules and Procedures - Rule 5.12 (Lack of personal jurisdiction). The Plaintiff lacks standing, as their whole case leans on a valid contract being formed, and said contract having been breached. The Plaintiff, in order to have standing in this case, must prove that they "Suffered some injury caused by a clear second party". However, my client does not have sufficient playtime to have the capacity to enter a contract (D-001), making the contract void and breach of contract not applicable. Because they are not party to a contract, the Plaintiff lacks standing.

Due to the provided reasons, we respectfully ask the court to grant this motion to dismiss.

 

[Vennefly]

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO DISMISS

The defence moves that the complaint in this case be dismissed, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:

1. Information - Court Rules and Procedures - Rule 5.5 (Lack of claim). There cannot exist a contract claim due to a lack of capacity to enter a contract on my client's side. In Lawsuit: Adjourned - Dimitre977 v. kesballo [2025] FCR 6, the Defendant had much more playtime than my client (over 4 hours) and even then, the contract was declared null. This case cannot be described as anything more than a frivolous filing from opposing counsel and the Court should see it as a complete waste of its time. It has been proven time and time again that players with low playtime cannot enter contracts.

2. Information - Court Rules and Procedures - Rule 5.12 (Lack of personal jurisdiction). The Plaintiff lacks standing, as their whole case leans on a valid contract being formed, and said contract having been breached. The Plaintiff, in order to have standing in this case, must prove that they "Suffered some injury caused by a clear second party". However, my client does not have sufficient playtime to have the capacity to enter a contract (D-001), making the contract void and breach of contract not applicable. Because they are not party to a contract, the Plaintiff lacks standing.

Due to the provided reasons, we respectfully ask the court to grant this motion to dismiss.

Your Honour, may the Plaintiff respond?

 

[dearev]

Your Honour, may the Plaintiff respond?

You may.

Your honour,

We move for the EI to be modified as to only hold $14,000 in government escrow until this case is resolved, which corresponds to the compensatory damages asked for by the Plaintiff.

If this EI were to be granted, it could set a dangerous precedent where any Plaintiff may request an EI for the full damages requested extending beyond compensatory*, however absurd they may be, and have a client's assets frozen for an arbitrary amount, which violates my client's right to unreasonable search or seizure and my client's right not to be deprived of liberty; that is, liberty to one's assets.

* This is the case because the LDA does not cap punitive damages.

Thank you.

Ill be modifying the emergency injuction to only hold $14,000.

 

[Vennefly]

Brief

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
RESPONSE TO MOTION TO DISMISS

Your Honour,

Defendant bases their Motion to Dismiss on the allegation that a valid Contract was not formed between Plaintiff and Defendant.

Defendant alleges a Contract was not legally formed because:

1. According to Defendant, they lacked Capacity;
2. According to Defendant, their bid was not in line with the Department of Commerce's auction policy because Defendant did not possess sufficient funds at the time.

Contrary to what Defendant alleges, it is not easily said that a player lacks Capacity to enter into a Contract when they have not yet reached 6 hours of active playtime. Defendant selectively quotes from Dimitre977 v. kesballo [2025] FCR 6. However, reading the full Verdict, the Federal Court also acknowledges in that Verdict that:

[...] a lack of playtime may not necessarily mean that a player is not sufficiently able to conduct business. If a player has not accumulated enough playtime to be legally active on the server and were unable to have capacity, then businesses would be harmed. Such a decision must be narrowly tailored to focus on the issue at hand, which is whether a player with low playtime could have capacity to contract.

Reading further, we can see what the Court's motivation was for finding that the Defendant in that case did not have Capacity:

With that said, the court must protect the interests of newer players. We note that this implied contract between the plaintiff and the defendant would cost the defendant $200 dollars per hour, regardless of whether they were online. Under the terms of the implied contract, a new player would lose their starting balance, or “new player’s wealth” in 6 hours. [...]. The defendant, as a player with only four and a half hours of playtime, is more likely than not to have money that is close to their starting balance. An investigation of the defendant sua sponte does reveal that they have $1,589.02 dollars, which is close to a new player’s starting balance. It is unlikely that the defendant would have accepted this deal had they known the contract was likely to take their starting balance within a matter of hours, and they lacked the playtime necessary to recognize that such a deal was bad. Therefore, this court concludes that the defendant lacked the capacity to enter into this contract and thus the contract is void.

In other words, the deal in that case was so adverse in nature to the new player involved, that they would have quickly lost their entire starting balance and be plunged into debt.

The instant litigation is entirely different from Dimitre977 v. kesballo, as the contract (buying a painting at a reasonable market value) is not at all adverse to Defendant. Furthermore, the Volt Bank withdrawal in P-003 and the number of plots the Defendant held prior to eviction suggest that he in fact possessed significant funds, as opposed to just a starting balance. Defendant also carried himself in a way that suggests significant knowledge of the workings of DemocracyCraft or similar Minecraft servers. All these factors seem to suggest that Defendant did not in fact need the protection offered by Section 4(2)(e) Contracts Act, which only states that "Players with low playtime may lack the capacity to fairly enter a contract." (bold added). Therefore, the Defendant did not lack Capacity to enter into the Contract with Plaintiff.

The allegation that the Contract could also not have formed because Defendant lacked the funds to pay for his bid is false and perjurious. As seen in P-003, Defendant at the very least held R$40,000 in his Volt Bank account at the time. Also, the Verdict that Defendant cites does not in fact "affirm[] that, for an auction to be valid as a contract, it must follow departmental auction policy". In fact, other precedent since then seems to suggest that the DOC's Auction rules are not, in fact, binding between private citizens (Boomsides and Pepecuu v. Lucaa7377 [2025] FCR 10).

In conclusion, the Plaintiff does not lack Claim nor Personal Jurisdiction. Or, at the very least, it would be premature to dismiss the case based on the allegation that a Contract may not have formed. Whether or not that is the case should be determined after a full trial.

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Motion to Dismiss be DENIED.

Respectfully submitted,
Vennefly (MZLD).

 

[Vennefly]

My client is a new player, with not even 2 hours of playtime, therefore it is reasonable to conclude that his balance did not reach the value of the bid at the time of the auction

Objection

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - PERJURY

Your Honour,

This statement is clearly perjurious. As clearly shown in P-003, Defendant at the very least held R$40,000 in his Volt Bank account at the time. Additionally, as shown in Plaintiff's Motion for Emergency Injunction, Defendant also held numerous plots.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this statement is stricken from the record, and that the Public Defender is held in contempt of Court for their perjurious statement.

Respectfully submitted,
Vennefly (MZLD).

 

[Vennefly]

Lawsuit: Adjourned - Bombaz2005 v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2024] FCR 78 affirms that, for an auction to be valid as a contract, it must follow departmental auction policy, otherwise the bid is invalid.

Objection

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - PERJURY

Your Honour,

This statement is false. The Verdict in FCR 78 does not state anything of the sorts. That Verdict determines that a Contract was not formed because the bid was ambiguous, which is not at all the same as what Defendant claims here. This is an attempt to mislead the Court by mischaracterising prior case law in order to fabricate support for the Defendant’s position. Such a distortion of the record constitutes a blatant misrepresentation of fact and law, and cannot be permitted to stand.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this statement is stricken from the record, and that the Public Defender is held in contempt of Court for their perjurious statement.

Respectfully submitted,
Vennefly (MZLD).

 

[Superwoops]

According to Defendant, their bid was not in line with the Department of Commerce's auction policy because Defendant did not possess sufficient funds at the time.

The allegation that the Contract could also not have formed because Defendant lacked the funds to pay for his bid is false and perjurious. As seen in P-003, Defendant at the very least held R$40,000 in his Volt Bank account at the time. Also, the Verdict that Defendant cites does not in fact "affirm[] that, for an auction to be valid as a contract, it must follow departmental auction policy". In fact, other precedent since then seems to suggest that the DOC's Auction rules are not, in fact, binding between private citizens (Boomsides and Pepecuu v. Lucaa7377 [2025] FCR 10).

Objection

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - BREACH OF PROCEDURE

Your honour,

Opposing counsel appears to be arguing against my answer to complaint in their answer to my motion to dismiss, an argument that was not covered or mentioned in my motion. I move for these statements to be struck.