Lawsuit: Adjourned Noadenmark v. Zombie_Bro_ [2026] DCR 37

Status
Not open for further replies.
N

Noa

Citizen
Noadenmark
Noadenmark
Farmer
Joined
Apr 7, 2026
Messages
3

Case Filing​



IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


Noadenmark
Plaintiff

v.

Zombie_bro_
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF
Zombie_bro_ said he would pay 1050 if he was given a 1k loan he then said he would need 1k more and he didnt pay the last 1050 back


I. PARTIES
1. noadenmark

II. FACTS
1. Zombie_Bro_ was sent 2k
2. Zombie_Bro_ said he would pay back 2100
3. Zombie_Bro_ only paid half of the promised money back

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. The Defendant, Zombie_bro_, entered into a verbal loan agreement with the Plaintiff, Noadenmark, whereby the Plaintiff extended a total of $2,000 to the Defendant in exchange for a promised repayment of $2,100. The Defendant's failure to repay the full agreed amount constitutes a breach of contract under the laws of the Commonwealth of Redmont, as the Defendant received the full benefit of the loan but failed to fulfill their repayment obligation.
2. The Defendant's conduct may further constitute Fraud under the Commercial Standards Act, as the Defendant made representations regarding repayment that they knowingly or recklessly failed to honor, causing quantifiable financial harm to the Plaintiff in the amount of $1,050.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. $1,050 in compensatory damages, representing the outstanding unpaid balance of the agreed repayment of $2,100, of which only half was returned.



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: The 18th day of April 2026

Skærmbillede 2026-04-18 155332.png
Skærmbillede 2026-04-18 155612.png
Skærmbillede 2026-04-18 160047.png
 

Writ of Summons


@Zombie_Bro_ is required to appear before the District Court in the case of Noadenmark v. Zombie_Bro_ [2026] DCR 37

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.



This is a small claims action.
 
Hello!
I am currently ready for the court. I don't really understand how this works, but I was told to reply here when ready. I'm ready when you are.
-Zombie_Bro_
 
Zombie_Bro_ said:
Hello!
I am currently ready for the court. I don't really understand how this works, but I was told to reply here when ready. I'm ready when you are.
-Zombie_Bro_
Click to expand...
Since this is a small claims matter, i'm going to keep it very light.


@Zombie_Bro_

Please take 48 hours to respond to Noadenmark's complaint. You need not follow the format, just write effectively and direct your language to the Court.
 

Answer to Complaint


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

Noadenmark
Plaintiff

v.

Zombie_bro_
Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT​

1. AFFIRM
2. DENY The Defendant agreed to repay $1,050 in exchange for a loan of $1,000. The Defendant never agreed to repay $2,100.
3. DENY The Defendant repaid $1,050, fulfilling the full amount promised under the original agreement.

​

II. DEFENCES​

1. The contract was for $1,000, not $2,000​

Under Section 4 of the Contracts Act, a valid contract requires five elements: offer, acceptance, consideration, intent, and capacity. The evidence establishes that a contract was formed, but only in respect of a $1,000 loan repayable at $1,050.

Offer - Section 4(2)(a) defines an offer as "a clear and unequivocal communication expressing a party's willingness to enter into a contract." The Defendant stated in global chat: "guys i need like a 1k loan ill pay back 1050 in like 2m." This message identifies the precise sum to be loaned ($1,000), the precise sum to be repaid ($1,050), and the timeframe. It is a "clear and unequivocal" offer.

Acceptance - Section 4(2)(b) requires "a positive and unambiguous response to an offer... mirroring the terms of the offer." The chat log records the message "$1,000 has been sent to Zombie_Bro_" immediately following the Defendant's offer. By transmitting exactly the sum specified in the offer, the Plaintiff accepted its terms.

Consideration - Section 4(2)(c) requires "the exchange of something of value between parties." The Plaintiff provided $1,000; the Defendant promised $1,050 in return. Both constitute valid consideration.

Intent - Section 4(2)(d) requires that "parties must demonstrate a clear intention to create legal obligations." The Defendant's use of the word "loan" and the specification of a repayment amount and timeframe demonstrate a clear intent to be bound.

Capacity - Section 4(2)(e) is satisfied; both parties are active players on the server with over 6 hours of total playtime. (D-001, D-002)

The contract was therefore fully formed at the moment the $1,000 was sent, on the precise terms the Defendant offered: $1,000 loaned, $1,050 to be repaid. No other terms were agreed upon.

​

2. The second $1,000 transfer did not form part of any contract​

Following the first transfer, the Defendant requested further funds in chat. This second request contained no offer of repayment terms. Under Section 4(2)(a) of the Contracts Act, an offer must be "clear and unequivocal" as to its terms. A request for money without specifying repayment terms cannot constitute a valid contractual offer. Without a valid offer, no acceptance could mirror its terms per Section 4(2)(b), and no binding obligation to repay arose. The Defendant stated at the time of repayment: "you donated 1k extra to help me pay it back i never said it would add to the loan" - consistent with no contract having been formed over the second $1,000.

3. The Defendant performed their contractual obligations in full​

The chat log records "$1,050 has been received from Zombie_Bro_" - the exact sum promised under the contract. Under Section 9 of the Contracts Act, a contract may be terminated by "successful performance." The Defendant's obligation was discharged upon payment of $1,050. There has been no breach, and the Plaintiff's claim for compensatory damages is therefore without basis.

EVIDENCE​

1776555850169.png
1776555855265.png


By making this submission, I agree that 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 18th day of April 2026.



Case Filing


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
COUNTERCLAIM

Zombie_Bro_
Counterplaintiff (CPlaintiff)

v.

Noadenmark
Counterdefendant (CDefendant)

COMPLAINT
The CPlaintiff complains against the CDefendant as follows:

The CPlaintiff is countersuing due to the frivolous and baseless nature of this case. The CDefendant filed a "breach of contract" lawsuit claiming the CPlaintiff owes $1,050 in unpaid repayments, despite the CDefendant's own submitted evidence clearly showing the agreed terms were "$1,000 for $1,050" - an obligation the CPlaintiff fulfilled in full. Filing a lawsuit without reasonable basis, in the face of one's own contradicting evidence, constitutes abuse of legal process and has caused the CPlaintiff harm through the time and resources spent defending these unnecessary proceedings.
Click to expand...

I. PARTIES​

1. Zombie_Bro_
2. Noadenmark

​

II. FACTS​

1. The CDefendant sent the CPlaintiff $1,000 following an offer in global chat to repay $1,050.
2. The CPlaintiff repaid $1,050 to the CDefendant, fulfilling the agreed terms in full.
3. The CDefendant's submission as evidence in this case confirms both the original offer of "$1,000 for $1,050" and the subsequent repayment of $1,050.
4. The CDefendant filed this lawsuit claiming the agreed repayment amount was $2,100, despite the evidence contradicting this claim.

​

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF​

1. Abuse of Legal Process​

Under Part XII, Section 2 of the Redmont Civil Code Act (RCCA), a person commits abuse of legal process where:
(a) initiates or pursues a legal claim in bad faith, for improper purposes, or without reasonable basis; and
(b) the claim causes harm to the defendant.
Click to expand...
The CDefendant's evidence establishes that the contract was for a $1,000 loan in exchange for a $1,050 repayment. The CPlaintiff fulfilled that obligation exactly. There was no reasonable basis to bring this claim. Pursuing this action despite that evidence constitutes initiating a claim without a reasonable basis.

The CPlaintiff has suffered harm in the form of time and inconvenience spent defending proceedings that should never have been brought.

​

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF​

The CPlaintiff seeks the following from the CDefendant:

1. $10,000 in Punitive Damages pursuant to Part XII Section 2 of the RCCA (being 100 Civil Penalty Units), on the basis that filing a claim contradicted by the CDefendant's own evidence constitutes outrageous conduct under Part III Section 3(2)(b)(ii) and (iv) of the RCCA, being conduct the CDefendant knew or ought to have known would seriously inconvenience the CPlaintiff, and which involved dishonesty and bad faith in misrepresenting the agreed repayment terms.

2. Alternatively, $7,500 in Nominal Damages pursuant to Part III Section 4 of the RCCA, if the Court finds punitive damages are not warranted.

3. Legal fees at 30% of case value pursuant to Part III Section 7 of the RCCA

By making this submission, I agree that 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 18th day of April 2026.


1776555862880.png
 
Pursuant to Rule 4.8 (Interrogatories), the CPlaintiff submits the following interrogatories, which the CDefendant must answer truthfully and to the best of their ability:

1. What specific communication from the CPlaintiff established an agreed repayment of $2,100 rather than $1,050?

2. The screenshots you submitted show the CPlaintiff's offer as "guys i need like a 1k loan ill pay back 1050 in like 2m." Why do you interpret this as establishing a $2,100 total repayment obligation rather than $1,050?

3. Your own submitted evidence records "$1,050 has been received from Zombie_Bro_". Why do you contend the CPlaintiff failed to fulfil their repayment obligation despite this message?

4. Prior to filing this lawsuit, did you observe the CPlaintiff's statement "you donated 1k extra to help me pay it back i never said it would add to the loan"?

5. What specific communication from the CPlaintiff established repayment terms for the second $1,000 transfer?
 
Your Honor, I will be representing the Plaintiff on behalf of Talion & Partners INC.
Screenshot 2026-04-21 084116.png


I'd like to ask leave of the court to file a response to the Defendant's counterclaim before discovery begins.
 
ToadKing said:
Pursuant to Rule 4.8 (Interrogatories), the CPlaintiff submits the following interrogatories, which the CDefendant must answer truthfully and to the best of their ability:

1. What specific communication from the CPlaintiff established an agreed repayment of $2,100 rather than $1,050?

2. The screenshots you submitted show the CPlaintiff's offer as "guys i need like a 1k loan ill pay back 1050 in like 2m." Why do you interpret this as establishing a $2,100 total repayment obligation rather than $1,050?

3. Your own submitted evidence records "$1,050 has been received from Zombie_Bro_". Why do you contend the CPlaintiff failed to fulfil their repayment obligation despite this message?

4. Prior to filing this lawsuit, did you observe the CPlaintiff's statement "you donated 1k extra to help me pay it back i never said it would add to the loan"?

5. What specific communication from the CPlaintiff established repayment terms for the second $1,000 transfer?
Click to expand...
Additionally, I believe the response that has been prepared will adequately address the Defendant’s interrogatories as well as the counterclaim.
 
J_The_Fae said:
Your Honor, I will be representing the Plaintiff on behalf of Talion & Partners INC.
View attachment 80571

I'd like to ask leave of the court to file a response to the Defendant's counterclaim before discovery begins.
Click to expand...
Apologies, I misread and assumed discovery would start on the 23rd. May I request leave to file a response despite discovery having already begun?
 
In accordance with Rule 4.8, the Plaintiff adds the following people as witnesses:

1. julimonki
 
Discovery is now closed.

I see two witnesses

(P) julimonki
(D) Noadenmark


Writ of Summons

@julimonki is required to appear as witness before the District Court in the case of Noadenmark v. Zombie_Bro [2026] DCR 37

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.

 
Muggy21 said:
Discovery is now closed.

I see two witnesses

(P) julimonki
(D) Noadenmark


Writ of Summons

@julimonki is required to appear as witness before the District Court in the case of Noadenmark v. Zombie_Bro [2026] DCR 37

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.

Click to expand...

Objection


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

Your Honour,

The CDefendant has failed to answer the CPlaintiff's interrogatories in violation of Rule 4.8.

Rule 4.8 states that answers to interrogatories "must be made within 48 hours of being asked." The CDefendant was asked five interrogatories during the discovery period and has not answered any of them. The 48-hour deadline has passed without response and without any objection being raised within the required 24-hour window.


Objection


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

Your Honour,

The CDefendant has failed to file any answer to the CPlaintiff's counterclaim. Under Rule 3.6, defendants, in this case the CDefendant, must amend any answer to include affirmations or denials of all facts and defences under law or fact prior to the end of discovery. The CDefendant has not done so. Discovery has now closed, and no answer has been submitted.


Motion


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGEMENT

Pursuant to Rule 3.6, the CPlaintiff moves for default judgment against the CDefendant on the counterclaim.

Rule 3.6 explicitly states that failure to submit the necessary affirmations, denials, and defences prior to the end of discovery "is grounds for plaintiffs to request the presiding judge to grant default judgment against the defendant."

The CDefendant has had the full discovery period to respond to the counterclaim and has chosen not to. They have additionally failed to answer any of the CPlaintiff's five interrogatories. The CPlaintiff respectfully requests that the Court grant default judgment in favour of the CPlaintiff on the counterclaim, awarding the relief sought in the Prayer for Relief.

 
ToadKing said:

Objection


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

Your Honour,

The CDefendant has failed to answer the CPlaintiff's interrogatories in violation of Rule 4.8.

Rule 4.8 states that answers to interrogatories "must be made within 48 hours of being asked." The CDefendant was asked five interrogatories during the discovery period and has not answered any of them. The 48-hour deadline has passed without response and without any objection being raised within the required 24-hour window.


Objection


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

Your Honour,

The CDefendant has failed to file any answer to the CPlaintiff's counterclaim. Under Rule 3.6, defendants, in this case the CDefendant, must amend any answer to include affirmations or denials of all facts and defences under law or fact prior to the end of discovery. The CDefendant has not done so. Discovery has now closed, and no answer has been submitted.


Motion


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGEMENT

Pursuant to Rule 3.6, the CPlaintiff moves for default judgment against the CDefendant on the counterclaim.

Rule 3.6 explicitly states that failure to submit the necessary affirmations, denials, and defences prior to the end of discovery "is grounds for plaintiffs to request the presiding judge to grant default judgment against the defendant."

The CDefendant has had the full discovery period to respond to the counterclaim and has chosen not to. They have additionally failed to answer any of the CPlaintiff's five interrogatories. The CPlaintiff respectfully requests that the Court grant default judgment in favour of the CPlaintiff on the counterclaim, awarding the relief sought in the Prayer for Relief.

Click to expand...
Your Honor, as I have previously stated, my answer to the counterclaim will easily provide answers to the interrogatory. I did not file said answer because I was awaiting the court's permission to do so during discovery. I was not given leave to file it, and therefore I did not. Respectfully, the CPlaintiff has ignored statements I made clearly in this thread.
 
I'd also like to ask for an extension of 24 hours to answer the interrogatories separately.
 
The CDefendant submits these answers to the CPlaintiff's interrogatories:

1. What specific communication from the CPlaintiff established an agreed repayment of $2,100 rather than $1,050?

When the CPlaintiff requested the second loan of $1,000, he followed this request with the statement “so then I can pay it back”. The CDefendant reasonably, under the Contracts Act §5(2), assumed that this established new implied terms to the verbal contract, with the second $1,000 payment requiring a repayment of $1,050 as expected based on the original terms. It’s evident that any reasonable person would make this assumption, as we see in the chats that are presented in the screenshots; another player made the same transaction with the CPlaintiff and also expected repayment for the second loan.



2. The screenshots you submitted show the CPlaintiff's offer as "guys i need like a 1k loan ill pay back 1050 in like 2m." Why do you interpret this as establishing a $2,100 total repayment obligation rather than $1,050?

The original verbal contract was $1,050 for $1,000. However, the aforementioned implied terms based on the CPlaintiff’s conduct changed this; the CDefendant reasonably interpreted the statement “i need like 1k more so then i can pay it back” as a promise to repay another $1,050 for the second $1,000 loan. This would have brought the CPlaintiff’s total repayment to $2,100.

3. Your own submitted evidence records "$1,050 has been received from Zombie_Bro_". Why do you contend the CPlaintiff failed to fulfil their repayment obligation despite this message?

Again, the CDefendant expected two repayments of $1,050 based on reasonably interpreted terms that the CPlaintiff’s conduct clearly implied.

4. Prior to filing this lawsuit, did you observe the CPlaintiff's statement "you donated 1k extra to help me pay it back i never said it would add to the loan"?

This statement by the CPlaintiff is inherently incorrect. No donation took place, because a donation must be given with the full intention of receiving nothing back. The CDefendant sent the second $1,000 payment with the fully reasonable expectation that they would receive $1,050 back, therefore rendering any claim of a “donation” untrue.

5. What specific communication from the CPlaintiff established repayment terms for the second $1,000 transfer?

The CPlaintiff clearly said “so then i can pay it back” after requesting the second payment of $1,000, which inarguably implied that he would give a second repayment. We know that the CDefendant was reasonable in their assumption of the implied terms because, in the screenshots, we can see that another player (“Juli Bee”, aka julimonki) made the same transaction with the CPlaintiff and then also expected repayment for the second $1,000 loan.
 
J_The_Fae said:
4. Prior to filing this lawsuit, did you observe the CPlaintiff's statement "you donated 1k extra to help me pay it back i never said it would add to the loan"?

This statement by the CPlaintiff is inherently incorrect. No donation took place, because a donation must be given with the full intention of receiving nothing back. The CDefendant sent the second $1,000 payment with the fully reasonable expectation that they would receive $1,050 back, therefore rendering any claim of a “donation” untrue.
Click to expand...

Objection


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - NON-RESPONSIVE

The CPlaintiff objects to the CDefendant's answer to Interrogatory 4.

The question asked was a simple yes or no: did the CDefendant observe the CPlaintiff's statement prior to filing this lawsuit? The CDefendant has not answered this question, instead choosing to dispute the content of the statement.

The CPlaintiff respectfully requests the Court strike their answer and order the CDefendant to provide a direct answer to Interrogatory 4.

 
ToadKing said:

Objection


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - NON-RESPONSIVE

The CPlaintiff objects to the CDefendant's answer to Interrogatory 4.

The question asked was a simple yes or no: did the CDefendant observe the CPlaintiff's statement prior to filing this lawsuit? The CDefendant has not answered this question, instead choosing to dispute the content of the statement.

The CPlaintiff respectfully requests the Court strike their answer and order the CDefendant to provide a direct answer to Interrogatory 4.

Click to expand...
In order to have submitted the evidence, the CDefendant had to have observed the CPlaintiff's statement. My answer to the interrogatory was explaining why the CDefendant filed this suit despite the CPLaintiff's statement; said statement cannot dispute the CDefendant's claim to repayment because no donation was actually made.
 
J_The_Fae said:
In order to have submitted the evidence, the CDefendant had to have observed the CPlaintiff's statement. My answer to the interrogatory was explaining why the CDefendant filed this suit despite the CPLaintiff's statement; said statement cannot dispute the CDefendant's claim to repayment because no donation was actually made.
Click to expand...

Please answer the question Yes/No. This is a question if the message was observed, not the meaning behind it.
 
Your Honour @Muggy21 ,

I am briefly joining in as second chair on behalf of T&P.

The first chair of this case has asked to file a response to the Counter Complaint in #10, #11 and #16. We are now in the stage of witness testiomony for the initial complaint. Can we please get a ruling on our request. I believe you had asked the public to ping you in cases if anything gets missed due to your finals approaching. :)
 
TheSnowGuardian said:
Your Honour @Muggy21 ,

I am briefly joining in as second chair on behalf of T&P.

The first chair of this case has asked to file a response to the Counter Complaint in #10, #11 and #16. We are now in the stage of witness testiomony for the initial complaint. Can we please get a ruling on our request. I believe you had asked the public to ping you in cases if anything gets missed due to your finals approaching. :)
Click to expand...
There's an active motion for default judgment as a result of your side's failure to provide an answer. To permit it now would render that motion academic.

You may respond to the motion for default judgment. You generally don't need leave to respond to a counterclaim.
 
Muggy21 said:
@J_The_Fae You have 48 Hours to respond
Click to expand...
Your Honour,
Respectfully, this period has now passed and no response to the motion, nor an answer to the counterclaim has been provided. Further, no request to extend this time has been asked for. Instead of just providing what they should have, the CDefendant simply... hasn't.
 
Muggy21 said:
There's an active motion for default judgment as a result of your side's failure to provide an answer. To permit it now would render that motion academic.

You may respond to the motion for default judgment. You generally don't need leave to respond to a counterclaim.
Click to expand...
Your Honour,
The CDefence is under the impression that unless the Court permits you to respond to complaints by either summoning, ordering or by allowing a request to respond, you don't submit an answer.

We already asked leave of the Court to submit before the Motion for Default Judgement was moved and we have had it ready since long before.

I do not get how we failed to provide an answer when we already asked multiple times to do so. (Also, we already responded to the Breach of Procedure and Motion for Default Judgement in #16), I will assume we have permission to post an answer and do so now. Apologies for the delay.
 

Answer to Complaint


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

Zombie_Bro_
Counterplaintiff (CPlaintiff)

v.

Noadenmark
Counterdefendant (CDefendant)

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
1. AFFIRM the CDefendant sent the CPlaintiff $1,000 following an offer in global chat to repay $1,050.
2. AFFIRM the CPlaintiff repaid $1,050 to the CDefendant. DENY this fulfilled the agreed terms in full.
3. AFFIRM the CDefendant filed this lawsuit claiming the agreed repayment amount was $2,100. DENY that the evidence submitted contradicts this claim.

II. DEFENCES
1. Your Honor, the evidence that the CDefendant presented in the original case filing clearly shows that while the beginning of the verbal contract between the CDefendant and the CPlaintiff was a loan transaction of $1,000 for $1,050, the CPlaintiff then requested another loan of $1,000 and stated “so then i can pay it back”. The CDefendant reasonably interpreted this as an addition to the contract, consistent with the Contracts Act §5(2), with implied terms derived from the conduct of the CPlaintiff (this conduct being the already established expectation of $1,050 in return for the requested $1,000 loan, and the statement that the second transfer of $1,000 preceded the CPlaintiff “pay(ing) it back”). This assumption of the terms is supported by the fact that in the evidence submitted, it is shown that the CDefendant is not the only one who entered into this contract with the CPlaintiff - nor the only one who interpreted his statement in this way, as we can see when the player “Juli Bee” also assumes that $2,000 is owed to them by the CPlaintiff after completing the same transactions as the CDefendant. Hence, there is reason to think that a reasonable person would interpret the CPlantiff’s words and actions in this manner.

2. The above defence disputes the ability of the CPlaintiff to seek relief under the Redmont Civil Code Act (RCCA) Part XII §2,as the CDefendant did not initiate or pursue this case in bad faith, for improper purposes, or without reasonable basis; the CDefendant transferred the extra $1,000 to the CPlaintiff with the belief, supported by the CPlaintiff’s words and previous actions, that the CDefendant would receive $1,050 in return. Therefore, the CPlaintiff’s cited section of the RCCA does not apply. Additionally, the CPlaintiff has not suffered harm in the form of time or inconvenience, because the case was in fact filed with a reasonable basis.

3. The CDefendant is fully justified in claiming compensatory damages, as they lost $1,000 reasonably expecting $1,050 in return and therefore fulfill the requirements for compensatory damages under the RCCA Part III §2(2a). Based on the evidence presented, the CPlaintiff’s claim that “you donated 1k extra to help me pay it back” was an incorrect statement, because for a true donation to take place, the CDefendant would have had to transfer the $1,000 to the CPlaintiff with the full, free intention of sending the money without receiving anything in return. The very existence of this suit contradicts the claim that a donation was made, because the CDefendant had to have expected a repayment in order to sue the CPlaintiff for a breach of contract. This not only further supports the existence of the aforementioned implied terms that were added to the existing contract upon the CPlaintiff’s request for “like 1k more”, but also disputes the claim that the CPlaintiff’s contractual obligations to the CDefendant were entirely fulfilled.

III. EVIDENCE

1777296882584.png

1777296898049.png

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 27th day of April 2026

Authored by: @J_The_Fae

 
ToadKing said:

Objection


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

Your Honour,

The CDefendant has failed to answer the CPlaintiff's interrogatories in violation of Rule 4.8.

Rule 4.8 states that answers to interrogatories "must be made within 48 hours of being asked." The CDefendant was asked five interrogatories during the discovery period and has not answered any of them. The 48-hour deadline has passed without response and without any objection being raised within the required 24-hour window.


Objection


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

Your Honour,

The CDefendant has failed to file any answer to the CPlaintiff's counterclaim. Under Rule 3.6, defendants, in this case the CDefendant, must amend any answer to include affirmations or denials of all facts and defences under law or fact prior to the end of discovery. The CDefendant has not done so. Discovery has now closed, and no answer has been submitted.


Motion


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGEMENT

Pursuant to Rule 3.6, the CPlaintiff moves for default judgment against the CDefendant on the counterclaim.

Rule 3.6 explicitly states that failure to submit the necessary affirmations, denials, and defences prior to the end of discovery "is grounds for plaintiffs to request the presiding judge to grant default judgment against the defendant."

The CDefendant has had the full discovery period to respond to the counterclaim and has chosen not to. They have additionally failed to answer any of the CPlaintiff's five interrogatories. The CPlaintiff respectfully requests that the Court grant default judgment in favour of the CPlaintiff on the counterclaim, awarding the relief sought in the Prayer for Relief.

Click to expand...


Objection with regards to the Interrogatories is tabled as moot.
Objection with respect to the Counterclaim is SUSTAINED. CDefense misapprehension about requiring leave to file an answer to a counterclaim is confusing to this Court. A response to the Motion for Default Judgment would've been examples of cases where such leave was necessary to file. That wasn't done, instead CDefendant offered an excuse rather than an argument.


Motion for Default Judgement GRANTED. Considering the Answer untimely submitted by CDefendant affirms all known facts, the Court will proceed in summary judgement on the Counterclaim.


The Court will permit witnesses as they were summoned for the Small Claims complaint.

@ToadKing Please begin questioning Noadenmark.
@TheSnowGuardian @J_The_Fae Please find your witness so we may hear testimony.
 
I voluntarily recuse from this case.

I've had interactions with the Defendant/C-Plaintiff that have sufficiently convinced me that I'm unable to proceed in this manner to the standard required of an impartial judicial officer. These interactions occured after my last post at 10am EST today.

I'll notify the Chief Justice to have this case re-assigned.
 
Muggy21 said:
I voluntarily recuse from this case.

I've had interactions with the Defendant/C-Plaintiff that have sufficiently convinced me that I'm unable to proceed in this manner to the standard required of an impartial judicial officer. These interactions occured after my last post at 10am EST today.

I'll notify the Chief Justice to have this case re-assigned.
Click to expand...
I'm not contesting this recusal, but are you able to provide some more clarity as to the nature of these interactions?
 
ToadKing said:
I'm not contesting this recusal, but are you able to provide some more clarity as to the nature of these interactions?
Click to expand...

On review of the past 24 hours, I've learned/experienced the following:

1) Your client threatened to sue a financial institution I owned in game. I don't monitor #global-chat for mentions of TSE or my name, so I honestly had no idea those threats were made this morning when your motion was granted.

2) Your client, in the context of a commercial relationship, harassed and name-called the support staff of said financial institution over the course of the past few hours.

Although I'm a professional pancake eater judge, I don't see it fair to not disclose this and recuse. I don't wish for either party to be susceptible to an appeal based on my actions. For the above reasons, I decided to recuse.

I won't go into further details on the docket as to not prejudice your client further.
 
Muggy21 said:
On review of the past 24 hours, I've learned/experienced the following:

1) Your client threatened to sue a financial institution I owned in game. I don't monitor #global-chat for mentions of TSE or my name, so I honestly had no idea those threats were made this morning when your motion was granted.

2) Your client, in the context of a commercial relationship, harassed and name-called the support staff of said financial institution over the course of the past few hours.

Although I'm a professional pancake eater judge, I don't see it fair to not disclose this and recuse. I don't wish for either party to be susceptible to an appeal based on my actions. For the above reasons, I decided to recuse.

I won't go into further details on the docket as to not prejudice your client further.
Click to expand...
Thank you for providing this information.
 
I will be presiding over this case going forwards.

How things stand, as far as I can see: the court has granted summary judgment as to Defendant's counterclaim, which will be pending. As to the original claim, both sides desire to submit questioning to a witness. Is that all we have outstanding?

@Noa @TheSnowGuardian @J_The_Fae @Zombie_Bro_

Final note here: I don't think it's relevant anymore, but just in case it is, please stop referring to a "CPlaintiff" or "CDefendant." Plaintiff and Defendant only, please, regardless of if we're talking about the original complaint or the cross complaint. Keep it simple. And if you file something, please make it very clear who you are representing if you are not one of the named parties to this complaint. Thank you.
 
Notice to the Court

Your Honour,

On behalf of the Plaintiff, Noadenmark, Talion & Partners INC. respectfully welcomes Your Honour to this matter following the voluntary recusal of the prior judicial officer.

For the Court's convenience, the following items are presently open:

1. Motion for Reconsideration of Default Judgment, to be filed immediately following this notice, addressing the Order of 27 April 2026 (Post #29) granting default judgment on the Counterclaim.

2. Witness testimony on the small claims complaint. Your Honour's predecessor directed counsel for the Defendant to begin questioning Noadenmark, and directed the Plaintiff to produce julimonki. Both witnesses remain summoned.

The Plaintiff stands ready to proceed at the Court's direction.

DATED: This 27th day of April 2026
Authored by: @J_The_Fae / @TheSnowGuardian on behalf of Talion & Partners INC.


Motion


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF DEFAULT JUDGMENT

Noadenmark
Plaintiff

v.

Zombie_Bro_
Defendant

Pursuant to the inherent authority of this Court to reconsider its interlocutory orders, and to the principles of natural justice enshrined in Part II §1 of the Redmont Civil Code Act, the Plaintiff t respectfully moves for reconsideration of the Court's Order in Post #29 (Apr 27), granting default judgment on the Counterclaim and proceeding to summary judgment on damages.

I. GROUNDS FOR RECONSIDERATION

  1. The Plaintiff repeatedly sought leave to file an answer prior to the close of discovery.

While it is acknowledged that the need for leave was a misapprehension, the record reflects three separate written requests for leave to file an answer to the Counterclaim, all made prior to any motion for default judgment:

  • (a) Post #9 (Apr 22), initial request for leave to file a response to the Counterclaim before discovery began; (b) Post #11 (Apr 22), renewed request for leave after discovery had commenced; (c) Post #17 (Apr 24), further request for leave following the Defendant's motion for default.
None of these requests received a ruling before the Court granted default judgment. The Plaintiff did not refuse to answer; the Plaintiff awaited a ruling that never came. Default predicated on inaction is materially different from default predicated on requested-but-unanswered participation.

2. The Plaintiff's misapprehension was reasonable and not contumacious.


The Court characterised the Plaintiff's position as "an excuse rather than an argument." The Plaintiff does not dispute that leave was not, in fact, required to answer a counterclaim. The Plaintiff does, however, respectfully submit that operating under a mistaken-but-good-faith reading of procedure, and openly seeking the Court's guidance three times, is not the kind of conduct Rule 3.6 is intended to penalize. Rule 3.6 exists to prevent defendants from ignoring proceedings; it is not a trap for defendants who participate, request guidance, and stand ready to file.

3. A meritorious defence exists on the record.


The Answer at Post #27 is not a bare denial. It raises a substantive defence under Section 5(2) of the Contracts Act, namely that the Defendant's statement "so then i can pay it back," following an established prior course of dealing at $1,000 for $1,050, gave rise to implied terms a reasonable person would accept. The objective reasonableness of that interpretation is corroborated by the conduct of julimonki, an independent third party who entered the same transaction and held the same expectation of $1,050 repayment. This defence, if accepted, is dispositive of both the breach-of-contract claim and the abuse-of-process counterclaim, the latter of which requires the underlying claim to lack any "reasonable basis" under RCCA Part XII §2(a).

4. The Court is presently hearing the same factual dispute on the small claims complaint, and Part IV §7(2) requires both claims to be determined within the same proceeding.

Witness testimony is ongoing on the original complaint. The facts underlying the Counterclaim are identical to those underlying the complaint, namely whether the Defendant's conduct gave rise to implied terms requiring repayment of a second $1,050. RCCA Part IV §7(2) is unambiguous: "All claims under this Part shall be determined within the same proceeding as the original claim unless the court orders otherwise." Allowing the default to stand while the same factual dispute is tried risks inconsistent judgments: the Court may, on full evidence, find Noadenmark's claim had a reasonable basis, while the default record holds that it did not. Reconsideration avoids that inconsistency and gives effect to the statutory direction.

5. No prejudice to the Defendant.

The Defendant has the Answer, has the interrogatory responses, and is preparing to question Noadenmark on the same facts. Setting aside the default and proceeding on the merits costs the Defendant nothing they were not already prepared to litigate.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Default judgment under Rule 3.6 is a tool of last resort. Part II §1 of the RCCA expressly directs this Court to interpret the Code "in a manner consistent with the principles of natural justice and common law." Part II §2 further requires the Court to "avoid construing provisions in a manner that produces absurd, unjust, or unintended results." Both principles are engaged here. Defaulting a party who made three written requests for leave to file an answer, none of which received a ruling, is inconsistent with natural justice. Defaulting that party on a counterclaim while concurrently trying the same factual dispute on the original complaint produces an absurd and unjust result, contrary to Part IV §7(2). The public interest favors resolution on the merits, particularly where (a) the defaulting party has actively participated in proceedings, (b) a substantive defence exists on the record, (c) the opposing party suffers no prejudice, and (d) the same factual matrix is concurrently being tried on the merits. All four conditions are met here.


III. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

The Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court:
  1. Set aside the Order granting default judgment on the Counterclaim;
  2. Accept the Answer at Post #27 as timely filed nunc pro tunc;
  3. Permit the Counterclaim to be adjudicated alongside the original complaint on the witness testimony already underway, consistent with RCCA Part IV §7(2);
  4. Alternatively, if reconsideration is denied, exercise the Court's discretion under RCCA Part III §5 to defer summary judgment on damages until the conclusion of the small claims trial, so that the Court may assess the reasonableness of the underlying claim before quantifying punitive damages under RCCA Part III §3 or nominal damages under RCCA Part III §4.

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 27th day of April 2026

Authored by: @J_The_Fae / @TheSnowGuardian on behalf of Talion & Partners INC.





Brief


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
STATEMENT OF THE CASE: PLAINTIFF'S PRE-TESTIMONY POSITION

Noadenmark, Plaintiff
v.
Zombie_Bro_, Defendant

The Plaintiff respectfully submits this brief Statement of the Case to assist Your Honour in framing the witness testimony to follow.

I. THE QUESTION BEFORE THE COURT

The dispute reduces to a single question: when the Defendant said, in global chat, "i need like 1k more so then i can pay it back," following an established prior course of dealing in which the Plaintiff had loaned $1,000 in exchange for a promised $1,050 repayment, did that statement give rise to implied terms requiring a second $1,050 repayment?

If yes, the Defendant owes $1,050 and the Counterclaim collapses for want of any abuse of process.

If no, the Defendant has performed and the Counterclaim succeeds.

II. THE PLAINTIFF'S POSITION

**1. Section 5(2) of the [Contracts Act](https://www.democracycraft.net/threads/contracts-act.20790/) treats implied terms as having the same legal efficacy as express terms.** Implied terms may be derived from law, custom, or the conduct of the parties. The Plaintiff respectfully submits that the Defendant's conduct, in accepting a second $1,000 transfer immediately after stating "so then i can pay it back," in the context of a loan relationship in which $1,000 was understood to require $1,050 in return, gave rise to such an implied term.

**2. The objective reasonableness of that interpretation is corroborated by an independent third party.** The witness julimonki entered into the same transaction on the same terms, with the same understanding. Her testimony will establish that a reasonable person observing the same conduct reached the same conclusion. This is not the Plaintiff's idiosyncratic reading; it is the reading the marketplace gave the Defendant's words.

**3. The Defendant's "donation" framing is post-hoc and self-defeating.** The Defendant's claim that the second $1,000 was a "donation" is contradicted by the Defendant's own conduct in this litigation. A donation, by definition, requires intent to give without receiving anything in return. The very existence of this lawsuit, and the Defendant's vigorous defence of the second $1,050, confirms that no such intent existed. A party cannot characterise a transfer as a "donation" only when convenient to evade repayment.

III. WHAT THE COURT WILL HEAR

Witness testimony will establish:

(a) The original offer of "1k for 1050" was made publicly in global chat;
(b) Both the Defendant and julimonki accepted that offer by transmitting $1,000;
(c) The Defendant's subsequent message "i need like 1k more so then i can pay it back" was made in the same channel, in the same conversation, and was followed by a second $1,000 transfer;
(d) julimonki, observing the same exchange and entering the same second transaction, formed the same expectation of repayment;
(e) The Defendant has paid only $1,050 of the $2,100 owed.

IV. RELIEF SOUGHT

The Plaintiff respectfully invites Your Honour to receive the testimony to follow with the foregoing framework in mind, and at the conclusion of testimony to enter judgment in favour of the Plaintiff in the amount of $1,050.

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 27th day of April 2026
Authored by: @J_The_Fae / @TheSnowGuardian on behalf of Talion & Partners INC.

 
Hi, apologies for my delayed response. I’m still new to this and unsure about how the proceedings go, but I am present for questioning.
 
J_The_Fae said:
1. Motion for Reconsideration of Default Judgment, to be filed immediately following this notice, addressing the Order of 27 April 2026 (Post #29) granting default judgment on the Counterclaim.
Click to expand...
To start with, please don't say this is "presently open" if, in fact, it was not open at the time of posting. When you say it is already open, I then go back and look and see when exactly someone asked for a motion of reconsideration. It is annoying and a waste of my time and yours. When asked a question by the court, please answer strictly to the question being posed.


J_The_Fae said:
2. Witness testimony on the small claims complaint. Your Honour's predecessor directed counsel for the Defendant to begin questioning Noadenmark, and directed the Plaintiff to produce julimonki. Both witnesses remain summoned.
Click to expand...
This does indeed seem to be the case, and so notwithstanding any objections, I will give @Zombie_Bro_ a further forty-eight hours from now to ask his questions, or find counsel who will do so.

Your witness, Counselor, seems to have arrived. You may ask of her any questions you may have, subject to objections by the defense.

J_The_Fae said:

Motion​


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF DEFAULT JUDGMENT

Noadenmark
Plaintiff

v.

Zombie_Bro_
Defendant

Pursuant to the inherent authority of this Court to reconsider its interlocutory orders, and to the principles of natural justice enshrined in Part II §1 of the Redmont Civil Code Act, the Plaintiff t respectfully moves for reconsideration of the Court's Order in Post #29 (Apr 27), granting default judgment on the Counterclaim and proceeding to summary judgment on damages.

I. GROUNDS FOR RECONSIDERATION
  1. The Plaintiff repeatedly sought leave to file an answer prior to the close of discovery.

While it is acknowledged that the need for leave was a misapprehension, the record reflects three separate written requests for leave to file an answer to the Counterclaim, all made prior to any motion for default judgment:

  • (a) Post #9 (Apr 22), initial request for leave to file a response to the Counterclaim before discovery began; (b) Post #11 (Apr 22), renewed request for leave after discovery had commenced; (c) Post #17 (Apr 24), further request for leave following the Defendant's motion for default.
None of these requests received a ruling before the Court granted default judgment. The Plaintiff did not refuse to answer; the Plaintiff awaited a ruling that never came. Default predicated on inaction is materially different from default predicated on requested-but-unanswered participation.

2. The Plaintiff's misapprehension was reasonable and not contumacious.


The Court characterised the Plaintiff's position as "an excuse rather than an argument." The Plaintiff does not dispute that leave was not, in fact, required to answer a counterclaim. The Plaintiff does, however, respectfully submit that operating under a mistaken-but-good-faith reading of procedure, and openly seeking the Court's guidance three times, is not the kind of conduct Rule 3.6 is intended to penalize. Rule 3.6 exists to prevent defendants from ignoring proceedings; it is not a trap for defendants who participate, request guidance, and stand ready to file.

3. A meritorious defence exists on the record.


The Answer at Post #27 is not a bare denial. It raises a substantive defence under Section 5(2) of the Contracts Act, namely that the Defendant's statement "so then i can pay it back," following an established prior course of dealing at $1,000 for $1,050, gave rise to implied terms a reasonable person would accept. The objective reasonableness of that interpretation is corroborated by the conduct of julimonki, an independent third party who entered the same transaction and held the same expectation of $1,050 repayment. This defence, if accepted, is dispositive of both the breach-of-contract claim and the abuse-of-process counterclaim, the latter of which requires the underlying claim to lack any "reasonable basis" under RCCA Part XII §2(a).

4. The Court is presently hearing the same factual dispute on the small claims complaint, and Part IV §7(2) requires both claims to be determined within the same proceeding.

Witness testimony is ongoing on the original complaint. The facts underlying the Counterclaim are identical to those underlying the complaint, namely whether the Defendant's conduct gave rise to implied terms requiring repayment of a second $1,050. RCCA Part IV §7(2) is unambiguous: "All claims under this Part shall be determined within the same proceeding as the original claim unless the court orders otherwise." Allowing the default to stand while the same factual dispute is tried risks inconsistent judgments: the Court may, on full evidence, find Noadenmark's claim had a reasonable basis, while the default record holds that it did not. Reconsideration avoids that inconsistency and gives effect to the statutory direction.

5. No prejudice to the Defendant.

The Defendant has the Answer, has the interrogatory responses, and is preparing to question Noadenmark on the same facts. Setting aside the default and proceeding on the merits costs the Defendant nothing they were not already prepared to litigate.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Default judgment under Rule 3.6 is a tool of last resort. Part II §1 of the RCCA expressly directs this Court to interpret the Code "in a manner consistent with the principles of natural justice and common law." Part II §2 further requires the Court to "avoid construing provisions in a manner that produces absurd, unjust, or unintended results." Both principles are engaged here. Defaulting a party who made three written requests for leave to file an answer, none of which received a ruling, is inconsistent with natural justice. Defaulting that party on a counterclaim while concurrently trying the same factual dispute on the original complaint produces an absurd and unjust result, contrary to Part IV §7(2). The public interest favors resolution on the merits, particularly where (a) the defaulting party has actively participated in proceedings, (b) a substantive defence exists on the record, (c) the opposing party suffers no prejudice, and (d) the same factual matrix is concurrently being tried on the merits. All four conditions are met here.


III. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

The Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court:
  1. Set aside the Order granting default judgment on the Counterclaim;
  2. Accept the Answer at Post #27 as timely filed nunc pro tunc;
  3. Permit the Counterclaim to be adjudicated alongside the original complaint on the witness testimony already underway, consistent with RCCA Part IV §7(2);
  4. Alternatively, if reconsideration is denied, exercise the Court's discretion under RCCA Part III §5 to defer summary judgment on damages until the conclusion of the small claims trial, so that the Court may assess the reasonableness of the underlying claim before quantifying punitive damages under RCCA Part III §3 or nominal damages under RCCA Part III §4.

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 27th day of April 2026

Authored by: @J_The_Fae / @TheSnowGuardian on behalf of Talion & Partners INC.
Click to expand...
Does the defendant have anything to say regarding this motion?

J_The_Fae said:

Brief​


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
STATEMENT OF THE CASE: PLAINTIFF'S PRE-TESTIMONY POSITION

Noadenmark, Plaintiff
v.
Zombie_Bro_, Defendant

The Plaintiff respectfully submits this brief Statement of the Case to assist Your Honour in framing the witness testimony to follow.

I. THE QUESTION BEFORE THE COURT

The dispute reduces to a single question: when the Defendant said, in global chat, "i need like 1k more so then i can pay it back," following an established prior course of dealing in which the Plaintiff had loaned $1,000 in exchange for a promised $1,050 repayment, did that statement give rise to implied terms requiring a second $1,050 repayment?

If yes, the Defendant owes $1,050 and the Counterclaim collapses for want of any abuse of process.

If no, the Defendant has performed and the Counterclaim succeeds.

II. THE PLAINTIFF'S POSITION

**1. Section 5(2) of the [Contracts Act](https://www.democracycraft.net/threads/contracts-act.20790/) treats implied terms as having the same legal efficacy as express terms.** Implied terms may be derived from law, custom, or the conduct of the parties. The Plaintiff respectfully submits that the Defendant's conduct, in accepting a second $1,000 transfer immediately after stating "so then i can pay it back," in the context of a loan relationship in which $1,000 was understood to require $1,050 in return, gave rise to such an implied term.

**2. The objective reasonableness of that interpretation is corroborated by an independent third party.** The witness julimonki entered into the same transaction on the same terms, with the same understanding. Her testimony will establish that a reasonable person observing the same conduct reached the same conclusion. This is not the Plaintiff's idiosyncratic reading; it is the reading the marketplace gave the Defendant's words.

**3. The Defendant's "donation" framing is post-hoc and self-defeating.** The Defendant's claim that the second $1,000 was a "donation" is contradicted by the Defendant's own conduct in this litigation. A donation, by definition, requires intent to give without receiving anything in return. The very existence of this lawsuit, and the Defendant's vigorous defence of the second $1,050, confirms that no such intent existed. A party cannot characterise a transfer as a "donation" only when convenient to evade repayment.

III. WHAT THE COURT WILL HEAR

Witness testimony will establish:

(a) The original offer of "1k for 1050" was made publicly in global chat;
(b) Both the Defendant and julimonki accepted that offer by transmitting $1,000;
(c) The Defendant's subsequent message "i need like 1k more so then i can pay it back" was made in the same channel, in the same conversation, and was followed by a second $1,000 transfer;
(d) julimonki, observing the same exchange and entering the same second transaction, formed the same expectation of repayment;
(e) The Defendant has paid only $1,050 of the $2,100 owed.

IV. RELIEF SOUGHT

The Plaintiff respectfully invites Your Honour to receive the testimony to follow with the foregoing framework in mind, and at the conclusion of testimony to enter judgment in favour of the Plaintiff in the amount of $1,050.

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 27th day of April 2026
Authored by: @J_The_Fae / @TheSnowGuardian on behalf of Talion & Partners INC.
Click to expand...
I don't know what this is, Counselor. What is this you are putting before me? Is this not just a re-submission of your original complaint? If so, why?
 
Smallfries said:
To start with, please don't say this is "presently open" if, in fact, it was not open at the time of posting. When you say it is already open, I then go back and look and see when exactly someone asked for a motion of reconsideration. It is annoying and a waste of my time and yours. When asked a question by the court, please answer strictly to the question being posed.



This does indeed seem to be the case, and so notwithstanding any objections, I will give @Zombie_Bro_ a further forty-eight hours from now to ask his questions, or find counsel who will do so.

Your witness, Counselor, seems to have arrived. You may ask of her any questions you may have, subject to objections by the defense.


Does the defendant have anything to say regarding this motion?


I don't know what this is, Counselor. What is this you are putting before me? Is this not just a re-submission of your original complaint? If so, why?
Click to expand...
Your Honour,

Apologies for our confusion, to begin with:
1. We retract our Motion to Reconsider and Brief.

2. Additionally, we would like an extension of 48 hours on witness questions. We're trying to get in touch with the Defendant for an out-of-court settlement and we would much rather this case be removed from the Court's Docket.

3. We urge the Court to go ahead with summary judgement on the Counterclaim.

Again, our sincere apologies for this confusion.
 
TheSnowGuardian said:
1. We retract our Motion to Reconsider and Brief.
Click to expand...
TheSnowGuardian said:
3. We urge the Court to go ahead with summary judgement on the Counterclaim.
Click to expand...
Very well, then.


TheSnowGuardian said:
2. Additionally, we would like an extension of 48 hours on witness questions. We're trying to get in touch with the Defendant for an out-of-court settlement and we would much rather this case be removed from the Court's Docket.
Click to expand...
Granted, for both parties.
 
TheSnowGuardian said:
The Plaintiff humbly requests the Court to rule on the Counterclaim after witness testimony is heard on the orginal claim, should said witness testimony even happen.
Click to expand...
I planned on "resolving" both claims at once. That would mean either formally dismissing the original complaint and giving my verdict on the counter-claim (in the case that you came to a settlement), or giving both verdicts at once. I trust this satisfies your desire here?
 
Smallfries said:
I planned on "resolving" both claims at once. That would mean either formally dismissing the original complaint and giving my verdict on the counter-claim (in the case that you came to a settlement), or giving both verdicts at once. I trust this satisfies your desire here?
Click to expand...
Yes Your Honour.
 
The Plaintiff asks the following of @julimonki:

  1. What is it that the Defendant seems to do in P-001?

2. What did you do after the Defendant's actions in P-001?
 
From my perspective, the screenshots do not show the full context of the conversation. At first the defendant made the offer and I took him up on it, even without the knowledge that other people had taken them up on it too. Then I remember there being a bit of a back and forth and people asked them when they’d be paying back the promised amount (as they said it would just be a moment), and they just kept delaying it saying they needed a bit more before they could. This was a back and forth for what felt like a few minutes, but it was implied that if they didn’t receive more money, they would not be able to repay the promised amount, or even return the initial payments, at all.
I believe that's why both the plaintiff and I felt like we had to make the so called « donation ».
In my opinion, using technicalities like the specific wording the defendant used the second time they asked for money demonstrates the bad faith behind the initial offer in the first place. I certainly felt taken advantage of.
 

Closing Statement


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CLOSING STATEMENT

Your Honor,

The Defendant entered into a verbal contract in global chat with the Plaintiff that included simple terms: a $1,000 loan would be met with a $1,050 repayment; following this, the Plaintiff sent $1,000 to the Defendant. Later, the Defendant returned with a request for “like 1k more”, also in global chat, following that request with “so then i can pay it back”, establishing implied terms that were added to the contract. The Plaintiff sent the Defendant a second payment of $1,000, fully expecting a second repayment; however, after this second payment, the Defendant repaid only the $1,050 owed for the original $1,000 loan, incorrectly stated that the Plaintiff had “donated 1k extra”, and justified this by continuing, “i never said it would add to the loan”.

The only argument that the failure to provide repayment for the second $1,000 loan does not classify as an unmistakable breach of contract relies inherently on technicalities that do not, in the Plaintiff’s opinion, hold with the “purpose and the spirit of the law” as codified by the Redmont Civil Code Act Part II §2. It is clear, in all the evidence presented, that the Plaintiff reasonably interpreted the Defendant’s conduct as establishing implied terms in addition to the original contract - terms which are legally binding under the Contracts Act §5(2). According to julimonki’s witness testimony, the Defendant acted in bad faith, as is also evident by his pivot from “so then i can pay it back” to “i never said it would add to the loan”. Despite there being no explicit statement by the Defendant that a second repayment of $1,050 was agreed upon, the Defendant heavily implied this and conducted himself in a manner (the already established expectation of $1,050 for $1,000, and his statement directly after the second loan request that the purpose was “so then i can pay it back”) that made it easy and reasonable to interpret his actions as such.

It is also a fact that despite the Defendant’s claim that a donation was made, there was no transfer of money with the intent of receiving nothing back; the Plaintiff obviously expected, based on the Defendant’s conduct and the aforementioned implied terms, that they would be paid back. julimonki, too, made the second payment of $1,000 with no intention of making an unreturned donation. Therefore, nothing the Plaintiff did could be construed in this way.

The Plaintiff holds that the Defendant has committed a very apparent breach of contract under the Contracts Act §7 (“a breach of contract occurs when a party fails to fulfill its contractual obligations”) and that he owes the Plaintiff their contractual due of the second $1,050 repayment.

 
I don't have anything more to say. I think this case went fine. I will say that I should have worded my chat messages correctly, but I felt it was justified. I am fine with the outcome of this case, Dm me if you have any more questions!
 

Verdict


Chief Justice Fries writes the opinion of the District Court.

Noadenmark (“Plaintiff”) files suit with the District Court over breach of contract stemming from an alleged loan agreement in-game worth $1,050. Zombie_Bro_ (“Defendant”) contests, saying that no such agreement existed, as no terms or unambiguous offer was made.

In the course of litigation, Defendant filed a counter-claim demanding $10,000 in punitive damages due to the alleged outrageous conduct of the claim itself being filed, or alternatively $7,500 in nominal damages.

This opinion will first discuss the relevant facts and law. I will then move to the original complaint and discuss its validity. After that, I will move to the counter-claim. I will then give my verdict as to both filings.

I. Facts​

Some time on or before April 18, 2026, the parties entered into one undisputed contract through in-game chat whereby Plaintiff would loan Defendant $1,000 and in return receive $1,050. The record shows that Defendant, in one message, states he “need[ s ] like a 1k loan ill pay back 1050 in like 2m [sic].” Plaintiff then promptly sends $1,000. Later, Defendant is seen saying “i need like 1k more so then i can pay it back i got an idea . . . a quick resell . . . i need 1k more [sic].” Plaintiff again is seen sending $1,000.

Later, Defendant says “it was a donation . . . i just said it was for a quick resell . . . who do i owe 1050 $ [sic].” Defendant then pays Plaintiff $1,050. Finally, the interaction ends with Defendant remarking “payed back . . . you donated 1k extra to help me pay it back i never said it would add to the loan . . . [sic].” The altercation ends with Defendant sending in global chat nothing more than a “:>”.

Two other people in chat can be seen as alleging they also transacted with Defendant in a similar manner to how Plaintiff did. This suit followed.

II. Discussion​

A. Rule

A contract is a legally binding agreement between two or more parties, typically for the rendering of services or payment of goods or money. Contracts Act § 4(1). A contract has five elements: Offer, Acceptance, Consideration, Intent, and Capacity. Id. § 4(2). All five must be met for a contract to be validly formed. Id.

For the offer element to be met, a “clear and unequivocal communication” must be made expressing the offeror’s willingness to contract. Id. § 4(2)(a). This clear and unequivocal communication may be “either explicitly stated or reasonably inferred from the circumstances.”

The Redmont Civil Code Act (“RCCA”) serves as a single source of truth for most civil violations and infractions. RCCA. A breach of contract is held in strict liability, and is committed when a person fails to perform obligations under a valid and enforceable contract. Id. Part VI § 1. Punitive damages are damages awarded to punish a person for outrageous conduct and to deter them and others from similar future conduct. Id. Part III § 3(2)(a). Outrageous conduct is that which demonstrates a substantial departure from acceptable behavior and malicious character. Id. § 3(2)(b). When evaluating punitive damages, courts must consider the character of the alleged wrongdoing. Id. § 3(2)(d). A person abuses the legal process when they file a suit maliciously or irresponsibly and cause harm to the other party. Id. Part XII, § 2.

B. Original Complaint

To begin with, both parties agree that an initial contract was formed, with the offeror paying interest of $50 (or 5%) some time after a principal payment of $1,000. This contract was made and then successfully completed. Both parties also agree that a secondary payment from Plaintiff of $1,000 was made. The dispute is whether this secondary payment was made in acceptance of an alleged secondary offer.

Plaintiff argues that when Defendant asked for more money—an identical amount to the previously-established contract—and said he needed it “so then i can pay it back [sic],” a second offer was made, ostensibly with similar terms as to the first offer. Plaintiff asserts that after this payment, Defendant more or less pulled the rug out and claimed Plaintiff had, in essence, donated that secondary payment.

In response, Defendant points out that his secondary request contained no offer of repayment terms. Therefore, the offer was neither clear nor unequivocal. As a result, Defendant has repaid their obligations in full. No explanation is made for why the alleged donation is not an attempt at misrepresentation, misdirection, fraud, or deceit.

Here, it is certainly clear that a reasonable person would believe a repeat and mirrored contract was being offered, where a further $1,000 payment would result in a repeated profit of 5%. While true that the second request did not include specific terms or an explicit affirmation that it was a repeat of the second loan, there is no requirement that it needed to. In fact, the plain text of the statutory explanation for an offer includes the phrase “or reasonably inferred from the circumstances.” Contracts Act § 4(2)(a).

In the course of dealing, Plaintiff made a contract with Defendant for $1,000. Consideration on his part would be interest of 5%, payable in some short-term future. This was clear, publicly communicated, and relatively simple. After this first deal was struck, Defendant asked for yet another $1,000. Defendant said he needed it to “pay it back,” and that an idea he had involving a “quick resell” required that second payment. This appears to be Defendant collecting money to use for some commercial transaction. The obvious intent here is he would take capital from others and turn that into extra profit. To induce those others to loan to him, he would obviously need to offer an incentive. This is where his explicit 5% offer in the first deal comes in.

Defendant, still engaged in his original enterprise, asks for the same amount of money he previously asked for. He makes no indication that this is not a new contract. The request is for a duplicate amount ($1,000) for a duplicate purpose (to try to make profit). A reasonable person would assume, then, that this request was indeed a duplicate offer, especially given how close in time, structure, and purpose the request was. So reasonable is this belief that the record shows two other individuals seemed to have taken Defendant up on the offer.

At the heart of this holding is the concept of “course of dealings.” Defendant’s view holds that every single offer, to be valid, must explicitly lay out that it is indeed an offer, including the terms necessary to make it one (or at least to say “same terms as before,” or similar). Any person that has ever done business or haggled with a single party on a repeated basis knows that this is both unnatural and not commonly done.

A course of dealings—or the history of transactions between parties—informs their relationship and their expectations of one another. Simply put, a course of dealings between parties sheds light as to their intentions and expectations, especially where in later transactions, terms or explicit instructions may not be given. Imagine if you told a fisherman that if he dropped three fresh-caught fish at your door you would pay him twenty dollars. He drops off the fish and you pay twenty dollars. You then say that you would like more fish, but mention nothing as to the twenty dollars or any compensation. He drops off the fish and you take them, and do not pay twenty dollars.

Given that there was a course of dealings between the two, the fisherman is clearly going out of his way to do something he would not otherwise do; providing a good, service, or compensation to another party. The first time he was compensated. The other party then said he wanted that good/service/compensation again. Would any reasonable person, with a straight face, say that the other party’s statement was not an offer on the same terms? The parties had a course of dealing and a prior experience to lean on. Why should the offeror be made to explicitly state the terms every single time? This is not how human beings talk to one another.

In the alternative, the fisherman’s second fish delivery could itself be construed as an offer—an offer to continue the previous contract. Any reasonable person would surely surmise that the fisherman is not giving the other party the fish out of the goodness of his heart. The offeror, in taking the fish and not asking for clarification or disabusing the fisherman as to the latter’s clear expectation of repayment, accepts this offer—even if truly he intends to not pay anything and later claim it was a gift. If he didn't intend to pay the fisherman back, he should say so and clarify, or simply return the fish and not keep them. Keeping them without disabusing the fisherman of his belief can very strongly signal acceptance of an offer.

The course of dealings protects our society from duplicitous actions that seek to abuse relaxed communication between parties. As a precautionary measure, parties should always strive to unambiguously declare terms and then record those terms. But, as the Contracts Act says, reasonably inferring the offer from circumstances is enough. Here, a request that is identical to a previous request can be reasonably inferred as also repeating the consideration for that previous request. Even if it were not, Defendant should have been on notice when he asked for something he had previously asked for—with a promise of payment—and was given it. There was a clear intention from Plaintiff to enter a contract, and that secondary payment could then be seen as an offer on its own, which Defendant clearly then accepted.

Because the parties had a course of dealings, and the second offer can reasonably be seen as a repeat of the first, and Defendant did nothing to disabuse Plaintiff of their thoughts regarding repayment, and because Defendant’s actions seem very clearly to try to be impermissibly sly and deceptive, it is clear that the request for money, or in the alternative the offering of money, was an offer that was then accepted.

C. Counter-Claim

Defendant files counter-claim alleging that Plaintiff abused the legal process when the latter filed the original complaint because “the evidence contradicted this claim.” Specifically, Defendant alleges that his evidence shows the primary contract, which was fulfilled. Defendant then asserts that “there was no reasonable basis to bring this claim.”

This is reviewed absent a verdict on the original complaint, on its own merits. To begin, the original complaint included argumentation and evidence not alluded to in the counter claim that specifically give rise to the potential for their claim to be true, compensable, and reasonable. Defendant asking for more money, receiving it, and then saying it was a donation and not returning it surely would seem like an injustice to a reasonable person that they would file suit to remedy.

Whether that injustice actually materializes or not is irrelevant. The application of the RCCA here is an attempt to use the law to bludgeon the opposing party. Were this relief to be granted, then any person that filed a claim and then lost could be subject to damages under this act. This is monstrously absurd, poisonous to a civil litigating society, and clearly far beyond the intent of Congress.

There is also an argument to be made that “time and inconvenience spent defending proceedings that should never have been brought” is not sufficient to meet the harm prong of the violation. A bad faith or unreasonable lawsuit (or any lawsuit for that matter) will necessarily include time, inconvenience, and likely expended resources. Congress surely anticipated this, and it is somewhat odd to imagine that an explicit necessary condition element of a violation would be one that always occurs when alleged. Therefore, it is clear that harm needs to rise above the rote defense of a lawsuit.

The most sobering part of the counter-claim is the relief requested. Plaintiff, reasonably believing he had been stiffed on a contract, sued for $1,050. In response, this counter-claim asks for $10,000 due to Plaintiff’s “outrageous” conduct (it should be noted that this amount is the absolute maximum allowed). A nearly ten times increase in punitive damages for merely using the legal system to argue a reasonable claim—that itself only asks for the amount allegedly owed, with no further punitives—is laughably outrageous. Here, requested relief is egregiously disproportionate to Plaintiff’s action. There is no reason to think that the filing of a case where one believed they had been cheated out of money constituted a "substantial departure" from accepted norms.

Because the original complaint was not in bad faith, for improper purpose, or without reasonable basis, and does not seem to have caused any cognizable harm to Defendant, the elements to make out a counter-claim of abuse of legal process are not satisfied. Merely filing a lawsuit should not at all times be liable for extreme punishment, even if the plaintiff is ultimately sided against.

As a final note on this subject: how, exactly, could someone be held liable for abuse of the legal process? For a possible example, look no further to the counter-claim discussed here. To ignore entire sections of Plaintiff’s filing in order to say that the filing was without reasonable basis and then demand damages nearly ten times higher than what Plaintiff requested is absurd and perhaps speaks to Defendant’s intent to frighten Plaintiff, or alternatively to squeeze as much money out of them as possible on a favorable decision. This, or a filing like this, could be construed as an attempt to frighten an opposing party into submission, and use the law as a weapon, instead of a process of truth-seeking and justice. Such a misuse is unacceptable, and is an abuse of the legal process.

III. Conclusion​

Because Plaintiff justifiably relied on the course of dealings between the parties when he sent Defendant money, either accepting what a reasonable person would see as an offer or making an offer himself, and because Defendant did not disabuse Plaintiff as to the obvious misconception the latter had, and then kept the money given, the District Court finds for Plaintiff and grants requested relief in its entirety, amounting to $1,050.

As to the counter-claim, because the filing was not without reasonable basis, and because prospective plaintiffs should not be punished merely for filing a case (whether or not they win), and Defendant produced no cognizable harm they suffered as a result beyond what is surely outside the intent of Congress, the District Court finds for Plaintiff and grants no relief or sanction.

The court thanks all for their time and efforts.

 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top