Lawsuit: Adjourned edwardcul1en v. Devious355 [2026] DCR 173

[edwardcul1en]

Case Filing

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


edwardcul1en,
Plaintiff

v.

Devious355,
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF

Defendant won an Auction held by the Plaintiff for an amount of $3,000, forming a Contract between Plaintiff and Defendant. Defendant subsequently failed to uphold their end of the Agreement by failing to pay the agreed amount. Plaintiff attempted to remedy this Breach through extrajudicial means prior to involving this honorable Court.

I. PARTIES
1. edwardcul1en (Plaintiff)
2. Devious355 (Defendant)

II. FACTS
1. On August 2nd, 2026, Plaintiff posted an auction thread in the #marketplace channel on the DemocracyCraft Discord server (P-001).
2. On the same day, Defendant placed a winning bid of $3,000 on the auction thread by replying "3000" (P-002).
3. 24 hours after the Defendant's bid was placed, Plaintiff replied to confirm that the defendant had the highest bid. Defendant was also given payment and delivery instructions at this time (P-002).
4. Defendant indicated their unwillingness to fulfill the contractual obligations agreed to by bidding in the #marketplace auction thread.
5. Plaintiff opened a Department of Commerce Support ticket to assess legal options, and was advised that the Defendant did not possess the funds necessary to fulfill their contractual obligations (P-004).
6. Defendant was fined $1,000 and banned from the #marketplace channel for a period of seven days by a representative from the Department of Commerce for placing an invalid bid (insufficient funds) (P-005).
7. Defendant's balance lacked the funds necessary to fulfill their contractual obligation to pay Plaintiff $3,000.
8. Plaintiff accepted the highest valid bid for a price of $1,250 (P-006).
9. Plaintiff attempted to settle the difference between the Defendant's bid and the highest valid bid price via Discord direct-message (P-007) and received no response from the Defendant.
10. Plaintiff attempted to settle the difference between the Defendant's bid and the highest valid bid price via in-game mail (P-008) and received no response from the Defendant.
11. Defendant agreed to the Department of Commerce Auction Policy by participating in an auction on the #marketplace channel on Discord.
12. Defendant's bid on an auction thread in the #marketplace channel constitutes a legally enforceable contract.
13. Defendant had reached more than six hours of playtime before entering into this agreement.
14. Defendant has participated in other auctions after being contacted by the Plaintiff and notified of their contractual obligations (P-009, P-010, P-011).
15. Defendant has breached the seven day ban from participating in Marketplace auctions given by the Department of Commerce by posting in multiple marketplace threads (P-009, P-010, P-011).

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. Breach of Contract
Through bidding on Plaintiff's auction 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 $3,000 in exchange for Plaintiff's yellow tractor by posting the message reading "3000" to the Auction thread (P-002).
2. Acceptance, the Plaintiff accepted Defendant's offer by announcing them 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 yellow tractor 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 yellow tractor for an amount of $3,000.
5. Capacity, each Party had the Capacity to enter into such a Contract. Both parties had reached more than 6 hours of playtime prior to engaging in this contract.

By not paying Plaintiff the $3,000 he is owed, Defendant failed to fulfill their 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.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. $1,750 in Compensatory Damages for the difference between the bid made by the Defendant and the final winning bid.
2. $10,000 in Punitive Damages for the emotional damages and stress caused by the Defendant's failure to pay the bid, and subsequent failure to solve this dispute extrajudicially.
3. $3,000 or 30% of the case value, whichever is higher, in Legal Fees
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 this 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.​

EVIDENCE

Spoiler: P-001

Original auction posting

Spoiler: P-002

Winning bid by Defendant

Spoiler: P-003

Defendant expressing unwillingness to pay his

Spoiler: P-004

Full contents of the Plaintiff’s archived DOC ticket regarding the auction

Spoiler: P-005

DOC Enforcement Action in the Auction Thread

Spoiler: P-006

New winning bid of R$1,250

Spoiler: P-007

Offer of settlement to Defendant via Discord DM

Spoiler: P-008

Offer of settlement to Defendant via Server Mail

Spoiler: P-009

Defendant violating 7-day marketplace ban (1st example)

Spoiler: P-010

Defendant violating 7-day marketplace ban (2nd example)

Spoiler: P-011

Defendant violating 7-day marketplace ban (3rd example)

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 5th day of August 2026.

 

[CreeperTD]

Writ of Summons

@Devious355 is required to appear before the District Court in the case of edwardcul1en v. Devious355 [2026] DCR 173.

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.

 

[Im_Wolffyy]

Your Honor,


I hereby enter my appearance on behalf of Defendant Devious355 in this matter. Devious355 has retained me to serve as his legal counsel.

Defendant is present before the Court and will respond to the Complaint within the time frame ordered by the Court.

DATED: This 24th day of September, 2026.

Spoiler: Proof of Representation

 

[CreeperTD]

Your Honor,


I hereby enter my appearance on behalf of Defendant Devious355 in this matter. Devious355 has retained me to serve as his legal counsel.

Defendant is present before the Court and will respond to the Complaint within the time frame ordered by the Court.

DATED: This 24th day of September, 2026.

Spoiler: Proof of Representation

View attachment 100036

Please present your answer to complaint within 48 hours.

 

[Im_Wolffyy]

Answer to Complaint

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

ANSWER TO COMPLAINT


edwardcul1en
Plaintiff

v.

Devious355
Defendant


I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

1. AFFIRMS that on August 2nd, 2026, Plaintiff posted an auction thread in the #marketplace channel on the DemocracyCraft Discord server (P-001).

2. AFFIRMS that Defendant placed a bid of $3,000 on the auction thread by replying "3000" (P-002). DENIES that Defendant's placed a valid winning bid.

3. AFFIRMS that 24 hours after Defendant's bid was placed, Plaintiff replied to confirm that Defendant had the highest bid. AFFIRMS that Defendant was also given payment and delivery instructions at this time (P-002). DENIES that there was a winning-bid contract between Plaintiff and Defendant.

4. AFFIRMS that Defendant indicated an unwillingness to complete the $3,000 transaction. DENIES that Defendant failed to perform an obligation under a valid and enforceable contract.

5. AFFIRMS that Plaintiff opened a Department of Commerce support ticket and was advised that Defendant did not possess sufficient funds to complete the $3,000 transaction (P-004).

6. AFFIRMS that Defendant was fined $1,000 and banned from the #marketplace channel for a period of seven days by a representative of the Department of Commerce for placing an invalid bid due to insufficient funds (P-005).

7. AFFIRMS that Defendant's balance lacked the funds necessary to complete the $3,000 bid. DENIES that Defendant was bound by a valid winning-bid contract.

8. AFFIRMS that Plaintiff accepted the highest valid bid for a price of $1,250 (P-006).

9. DOES NOT CONTEST that Plaintiff contacted Defendant by Discord direct message regarding the auction dispute and received no response (P-007). DENIES that Defendant's failure to respond establishes contractual liability or an entitlement to punitive damages.

10. DOES NOT CONTEST that Plaintiff contacted Defendant through in-game mail regarding the auction dispute and received no response (P-008). DENIES that Defendant's failure to respond establishes contractual liability or an entitlement to punitive damages.

11. AFFIRMS that Defendant's participation in the auction was governed by the Department of Commerce Auction Policy. DENIES that participation in the auction, by itself, established a valid and enforceable contract between Plaintiff and Defendant.

12. DENIES that Defendant's bid constituted a valid and legally enforceable winning-bid contract.

13. AFFIRMS that Defendant had reached more than six hours of playtime before submitting the bid. DENIES that this fact alone establishes the existence of the enforceable agreement.

14. DOES NOT CONTEST that Defendant participated in other auctions after being contacted by Plaintiff (P-009, P-010, P-011). DENIES that this conduct proves the existence of the alleged $3,000 contract or establishes liability to Plaintiff in this matter.

15. DOES NOT CONTEST that Defendant posted in marketplace threads during the Department of Commerce's seven-day restriction (P-009, P-010, P-011). DENIES that this separate matter establishes breach of the auction process between Plaintiff and Defendant.


II. DEFENCES

1. DEFENDANT NEVER HELD A VALID WINNING BID

Plaintiff's claim depends upon Defendant having possessed the valid winning bid. However, Defendant's $3,000 bid was invalid under the governing Auction Policy because Defendant lacked sufficient funds.

The Department of Commerce did not create this invalidity after the auction concluded. Instead, its determination confirmed that Defendant's bid failed to meet the governing requirements when it was submitted.

The Department therefore classified the $3,000 bid as invalid and recognized the $1,250 bid as the highest valid bid. Plaintiff subsequently accepted that valid bid.

In smokeyybunnyyy v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2024] FCR 103, the Court held that invalid auction bids should be annulled and the auction returned to its last legitimate position.

Defendant therefore never possessed the valid winning bid necessary to support the winning-bid contract alleged by Plaintiff.


2. NO ENFORCEABLE CONTRACT WAS FORMED UNDER THE CONTRACTS ACT

Plaintiff relies upon Section 4 of the Contracts Act, arguing that offer, acceptance, consideration, intent, and capacity existed.

However, the existence of a bid does not automatically establish the enforceable auction contract alleged by Plaintiff. The alleged offer was an invalid auction bid, and Defendant never became the valid winning bidder under the governing auction process.

In Boomsides and Pepecuu v. Lucaa7377 [2025] FCR 10, the Court distinguished ordinary auction bids from completed winning bids capable of producing enforceable contractual obligations.

Because Defendant's bid was invalid from the beginning and another bidder was ultimately recognized as the highest valid bidder, Plaintiff has not established the valid winning-bid contract required for a breach-of-contract claim.


3. THE AUCTION POLICY MUST BE READ AS A WHOLE

Plaintiff expressly relies upon the Department of Commerce Auction Policy as establishing the legal effect of Defendant's bid.

The Policy cannot be selectively interpreted.

While Plaintiff relies upon provisions stating that auction bids are binding, the same Policy establishes rules governing insufficient funds, invalid bids, forfeiture, and recognition of the next-highest valid bidder.

Those provisions were applied in this case. Defendant's bid was declared invalid and the $1,250 bid became the highest valid bid.

Plaintiff cannot treat Defendant's bid as invalid when determining the lawful winner of the auction, yet simultaneously treat that same bid as the valid winning bid when seeking contractual damages.


4. PUNITIVE DAMAGES ARE NOT WARRANTED

Plaintiff requests $10,000 in punitive damages for emotional stress, failure to pay, and failure to resolve the dispute extrajudicially.

Under Part III of the Redmont Civil Code Act, punitive damages require qualifying outrageous conduct and are intended to punish such conduct rather than compensate ordinary frustration or stress.

Plaintiff has not demonstrated that Defendant entered the auction with the purpose of harming Plaintiff, defrauding Plaintiff, or otherwise engaging in conduct sufficiently outrageous to warrant $10,000 in punitive damages.

A disputed auction transaction and Defendant's failure to respond to settlement demands do not, without further evidence, establish the misconduct necessary for punitive damages.

Further, Defendant's later alleged violations of a Department of Commerce marketplace restriction constitute a separate administrative matter and did not cause the contractual damages alleged by Plaintiff.


5. THE REQUESTED ASSET SEIZURE IS PREMATURE

Plaintiff requests an order authorizing the Department of Homeland Security to seize and liquidate Defendant's money, plots, inventory, ender chest, supporter chest, and financial accounts.

No monetary judgment has yet been entered against Defendant.

Any enforcement or seizure of property must therefore occur through the lawful post-judgment enforcement procedures provided by the Redmont Civil Code Act rather than through a blanket pre-judgment seizure request.


III. REQUEST FOR RELIEF

Defendant respectfully requests that this Court:

1. Enter judgment in favor of Defendant because Plaintiff has failed to establish breach of a valid and enforceable winning-bid contract;

2. Deny Plaintiff's request for $10,000 in punitive damages;

3. Deny Plaintiff's premature request for blanket seizure and liquidation of Defendant's property;

4. Award Defendant’s counsel legal fees pursuant to Part III §7 of the Redmont Civil Code Act, calculated at 30% of the case value; and

5. Grant any further relief the Court considers just and proper.


IV. EVIDENCE
Defendant relies upon the following evidence already entered into the record by Plaintiff:

P-002: Auction thread showing Defendant’s $3,000 bid and Plaintiff’s announcement concerning the auction.

P-004: Commerce support ticket concerning Defendant’s insufficient funds.

P-005: Department of Commerce determination and punishment for Defendant’s invalid bid due to insufficient funds. Defendant's bid is determined to be Invalid.

P-006: Evidence showing Plaintiff accepted the $1,250 highest valid bid following the invalidation of Defendant’s bid.


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 24th day of September, 2026.

 

[CreeperTD]

Discovery is now open, and will remain open for the next 5 days, starting from this message.

 

[CreeperTD]

Discovery is now open, and will remain open for the next 5 days, starting from this message.

Struck after noticing a deficiency. @Im_Wolffyy, where is your evidence? It has not been attacked to your answer to complaint.

 

[Im_Wolffyy]

Your Honor,
The defense presents no evidence. We can solely rely on the Plaintiff's exhibits for all arguments. If you would like, we can have their evidence duplicated as D-XXX exhibits; however, I decided against it for the simplicity of exhibits in this case.

 

[CreeperTD]

Your Honor,
The defense presents no evidence. We can solely rely on the Plaintiff's exhibits for all arguments. If you would like, we can have their evidence duplicated as D-XXX exhibits; however, I decided against it for the simplicity of exhibits in this case.

Understood, in future note that there is no need for you to list any of the Plaintiff's evidence in your answer to complaint, you need only reference it if you so choose.

Now, discovery shall open for 5 days starting from this message.

 

[Im_Wolffyy]

I. REQUEST FOR DISCOVERY


Pursuant to Court Rule 4.7, Defendant respectfully requests the complete and unedited Department of Commerce support ticket referenced in Exhibits P-004 and P-005, including all messages, screenshots, timestamps, and Department determinations concerning the validity or invalidity of Defendant’s $3,000 bid.


II. INTERROGATORIES TO PLAINTIFF


Pursuant to Court Rule 4.8, Defendant submits the following interrogatories to Plaintiff, which Plaintiff must answer truthfully and to the best of their ability:

1. Does Plaintiff contend that Defendant’s $3,000 bid was a valid bid despite the Department of Commerce determining that it was an “invalid bid” due to insufficient funds? If so, please state the basis for that contention.
2. Identify the specific conduct Plaintiff relies upon to support the requested $10,000 in punitive damages.

DATED: This 24th day of September, 2026.

 

[edwardcul1en]

Objection

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

Your Honor,

The Plaintiff objects to the Defendant's request for discovery on the basis that the information sought has already been provided in its entirety in P-004. If the Defense is referring to the content of P-005, this was taken from the publicly accessible auction thread, which the Defense may incorporate into evidence without reliance on the Plaintiff.

Objection

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - CALLS FOR A CONCLUSION

Your Honor,

The Plaintiff objects to Interrogatory 1 on the basis that it seeks a legal opinion rather than factual information.

PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY 2
As specified in the original complaint, the Plaintiff's claim for punitive damages arises from the lack of response from the Defense when an extrajudicial settlement was proposed. By failing to resolve this matter in a timely manner, the Defendant has placed an undue burden on Plaintiff and this honorable Court.

 

[edwardcul1en]

INTERROGATORIES
The Plaintiff submits the following question to the Defense:

1. Was the Defendant's failure to pay based on lack of available funds?
2. At what point in time did the Defendant become unable to pay the bid made in the auction in question?
3. Does the Defendant hold any significant assets other than an in-game balance?

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO COMPEL

Your Honor,
The Plaintiff seeks to compel the Defendant to produce the following evidence:
- The Defendant's balance at the time the bid was placed
- The Defendant's balance at the time the bid was declared as winning
- The Defendant's transaction history for a period of 24 hours before and 24 hours after the bid was placed

 

[Im_Wolffyy]

Brief

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTIONS

edwardcul1en
Plaintiff

v.

Devious355
Defendant

I. RESPONSE TO OBJECTION TO RULE 4.7 REQUEST

Your Honor,

Defendant respectfully opposes Plaintiff’s objection to the Rule 4.7 discovery request.

Defendant specifically requested the complete and unedited Department of Commerce support ticket referenced in Exhibits P-004 and P-005. The purpose of the request is to determine whether any further communications in the ticket exist beyond what Plaintiff submitted as exhibits.

If P-004 and P-005 contain the complete and unedited ticket in its entirety, Plaintiff may simply confirm that no additional responsive material exists. If additional messages, screenshots, timestamps, or Department communications exist, Defendant respectfully requests their production pursuant to Rule 4.7.

Regarding P-005, Defendant acknowledges and has verified that this is in public auction. Defendant still contests the objection to ambiguity.

II. RESPONSE TO OBJECTION TO INTERROGATORY 1

Defendant acknowledges Plaintiff’s objection and withdraws Interrogatory 1.

DATED: This 25th day of September, 2026.

 

[CreeperTD]

Brief

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTIONS

edwardcul1en
Plaintiff

v.

Devious355
Defendant

I. RESPONSE TO OBJECTION TO RULE 4.7 REQUEST

Your Honor,

Defendant respectfully opposes Plaintiff’s objection to the Rule 4.7 discovery request.

Defendant specifically requested the complete and unedited Department of Commerce support ticket referenced in Exhibits P-004 and P-005. The purpose of the request is to determine whether any further communications in the ticket exist beyond what Plaintiff submitted as exhibits.

If P-004 and P-005 contain the complete and unedited ticket in its entirety, Plaintiff may simply confirm that no additional responsive material exists. If additional messages, screenshots, timestamps, or Department communications exist, Defendant respectfully requests their production pursuant to Rule 4.7.

Regarding P-005, Defendant acknowledges and has verified that this is in public auction. Defendant still contests the objection to ambiguity.

II. RESPONSE TO OBJECTION TO INTERROGATORY 1

Defendant acknowledges Plaintiff’s objection and withdraws Interrogatory 1.

DATED: This 25th day of September, 2026.

There is no need to include the details of the case at the top of every post you make, nor does it need to be formatted as a legal brief. Including the date at the bottom of every post isn't necessary, either. Including all of this information adds unnecessary bloat to the court thread, please refrain from doing so in the future.

 

[CreeperTD]

Objection

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

Your Honor,

The Plaintiff objects to the Defendant's request for discovery on the basis that the information sought has already been provided in its entirety in P-004. If the Defense is referring to the content of P-005, this was taken from the publicly accessible auction thread, which the Defense may incorporate into evidence without reliance on the Plaintiff.

Objection sustained. Although the stated reason for the objection doesn't fit with it's definition in Guide - Objections, the court will instead rule on it as a Breach of Procedure Objection.

Rule 4.7 states that Discovery Requests should be for material relevant to the case. The Plaintiff has presented what it contends to the full contents of the ticket made with the Department of Commerce in P-004. The Defense has not made any allegations of this evidence not containing the full contents of that ticket. In addition, the court finds that P-005 does not include the contents of the DOC ticket. Therefore, this motion for discovery is DENIED.

However, the Plaintiff is hereby ordered to amend their complaint to label all exhibits with what they are meant to contain, either in the name of the spoilers containing the evidence exhibits, or within the spoiler itself.

So ordered.

 

[CreeperTD]

Objection

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - CALLS FOR A CONCLUSION

Your Honor,

The Plaintiff objects to Interrogatory 1 on the basis that it seeks a legal opinion rather than factual information.

Pursuant to Court Rule 4.8, Defendant submits the following interrogatories to Plaintiff, which Plaintiff must answer truthfully and to the best of their ability:

1. Does Plaintiff contend that Defendant’s $3,000 bid was a valid bid despite the Department of Commerce determining that it was an “invalid bid” due to insufficient funds? If so, please state the basis for that contention.
2. Identify the specific conduct Plaintiff relies upon to support the requested $10,000 in punitive damages.

Objection sustained. Defense Counselor, you are warned to not attempt to coax legal arguments from opposing council with interrogatories. Interrogatory 1 submitted by the Defense is hereby struck.

 

[CreeperTD]

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO COMPEL

Your Honor,
The Plaintiff seeks to compel the Defendant to produce the following evidence:
- The Defendant's balance at the time the bid was placed
- The Defendant's balance at the time the bid was declared as winning
- The Defendant's transaction history for a period of 24 hours before and 24 hours after the bid was placed

The Court cannot in good faith grant a Motion to Compel unless a reason is given. For what reason do you make this motion, Counsellor?

 

[edwardcul1en]

The Court cannot in good faith grant a Motion to Compel unless a reason is given. For what reason do you make this motion, Counsellor?

Your Honor,
The balances requested in the Motion to Compel is intended to determine if the Defendant did, at any time, have the ability to pay his bid.

The transaction history is intended to determine if the Defendant used funds, which could have been appropriated towards this bid for other purposes during the time shortly after making his bid.

These pieces of evidence would serve to establish a pattern of fiscal irresponsibility and failure of the Defendant to uphold his end of the contract.

 

[edwardcul1en]

Objection sustained. Although the stated reason for the objection doesn't fit with it's definition in Guide - Objections, the court will instead rule on it as a Breach of Procedure Objection.

Rule 4.7 states that Discovery Requests should be for material relevant to the case. The Plaintiff has presented what it contends to the full contents of the ticket made with the Department of Commerce in P-004. The Defense has not made any allegations of this evidence not containing the full contents of that ticket. In addition, the court finds that P-005 does not include the contents of the DOC ticket. Therefore, this motion for discovery is DENIED.

However, the Plaintiff is hereby ordered to amend their complaint to label all exhibits with what they are meant to contain, either in the name of the spoilers containing the evidence exhibits, or within the spoiler itself.

So ordered.

Thank you, Your Honor. The original filing has been amended accordingly.

 

[CreeperTD]

Your Honor,
The balances requested in the Motion to Compel is intended to determine if the Defendant did, at any time, have the ability to pay his bid.

The transaction history is intended to determine if the Defendant used funds, which could have been appropriated towards this bid for other purposes during the time shortly after making his bid.

These pieces of evidence would serve to establish a pattern of fiscal irresponsibility and failure of the Defendant to uphold his end of the contract.

Can you give the court an exact date and time when the bid was placed and reference a submitted piece of evidence when doing so?

 

[edwardcul1en]

Can you give the court an exact date and time when the bid was placed and reference a submitted piece of evidence when doing so?

The bid was placed 2026-08-02 20:01 UTC (shown by Discord as “yesterday” in P-002.) If it pleases the court, I will submit an additional exhibit showing the full timestamp.

 

[Im_Wolffyy]

INTERROGATORIES
The Plaintiff submits the following question to the Defense:

1. Was the Defendant's failure to pay based on lack of available funds?
2. At what point in time did the Defendant become unable to pay the bid made in the auction in question?
3. Does the Defendant hold any significant assets other than an in-game balance?

1. Yes.

2. Defendant is presently investigating the precise timing and attempting to obtain the relevant transactional history.

Objection

OBJECTION - AMBIGUOUS

Your Honor,

Defendant objects to Plaintiff’s Interrogatory 3:

“Does the Defendant hold any significant assets other than an in-game balance?”

The term “significant assets” is undefined and provides no objective threshold by which Defendant can determine what property Plaintiff is requesting to identify. As written, the question is unclear and imprecise.

 

[CreeperTD]

Objection

OBJECTION - AMBIGUOUS

Your Honor,

Defendant objects to Plaintiff’s Interrogatory 3:

“Does the Defendant hold any significant assets other than an in-game balance?”

The term “significant assets” is undefined and provides no objective threshold by which Defendant can determine what property Plaintiff is requesting to identify. As written, the question is unclear and imprecise.

Objection sustained, the interrogatory. Plaintiff, please submit a new interrogatory to specify what is meant by "significant assets." The struck interrogatory will not count against your limit of 5 interrogatories as outlined in Rule 4.8.

 

[edwardcul1en]

Objection sustained, the interrogatory. Plaintiff, please submit a new interrogatory to specify what is meant by "significant assets." The struck interrogatory will not count against your limit of 5 interrogatories as outlined in Rule 4.8.

AMENDED INTERROGATORY #3:
What are the contents of the Defendant's Estate as defined in Bankruptcy Act Part I § 3(1)(e)?

Spoiler: Estate Definition

Bankruptcy Act Part I § 3(1)(e)

(e) Estate. All legal or equitable interests of the debtor in property as of the commencement of the bankruptcy case, including tangible and intangible assets, less property declared exempt under Part II. The Estate includes, without limitation:

(i) The debtor's in-game personal balance and any other cash holdings;

(ii) Deposits held by the debtor at any Financial Institution, regardless of the institution's solvency, subject to applicable deposit guarantees;

(iii) All plots owned by the debtor, whether residential, commercial, industrial, town, or otherwise;

(iv) The contents of the debtor's main inventory, ender chest, donator chest, and any locked containers under the debtor's control;

(v) Stocks, bonds, ETF holdings, and other securities owned by the debtor;

(vi) Items held in chestshops or chestshop-backing containers owned by the debtor. Cash proceeds from such chestshops do not accumulate in the chestshop itself and are instead captured under Subsection (i) (personal balance) or, where the chestshop is operated by an Incorporated Entity, under the entity's business balance;

(vii) Receivables and contractual rights of the debtor, including loans the debtor has made to others and outstanding chestshop receipts;

(viii) Causes of action belonging to the debtor, including those that may be pursued by the Trustee under Section 10; and

(ix) Any other property in which the debtor has a legal or equitable interest.

Where property is co-owned by the debtor and one or more non-debtors, only the debtor's proportional interest forms part of the Estate, as provided in Section 11.

Edited to make slight formatting adjustments.

 

[CreeperTD]

INTERROGATORIES
The Plaintiff submits the following question to the Defense:

1. Was the Defendant's failure to pay based on lack of available funds?
2. At what point in time did the Defendant become unable to pay the bid made in the auction in question?
3. Does the Defendant hold any significant assets other than an in-game balance?

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO COMPEL

Your Honor,
The Plaintiff seeks to compel the Defendant to produce the following evidence:
- The Defendant's balance at the time the bid was placed
- The Defendant's balance at the time the bid was declared as winning
- The Defendant's transaction history for a period of 24 hours before and 24 hours after the bid was placed

Motion to Compel is granted with some modifications. The Court orders the Defense to present to the court evidence which shows the following:

1. The Defendant's balance on the 2nd day of August, 2026 at 20:01 UTC.
2. The Defendant's balance on the 3rd day of August, 2026 at 20:07 UTC.
3. The Defendant's transaction history between 2 hours before their bid was placed as shown in P-002, and the 4rd day of August, 2026 at 01:18 UTC, around which time an agent of the Department of Commerce stated that the Defendant did not possess the requisite funds.

So ordered.

 

[Im_Wolffyy]

Your Honor,

I am working with the defendant, but it may be difficult for the defendant to find time to retrieve the information for Interrogatory 2 and the court ordered motion to compel.

I request permission/orders from the court for defense counsel to work with the DoC, or whoever is necessary, to retrieve the historical balance and transactional data from Devious355. This will expedite the process of getting the requested information without burdening the Defendant for his time.

 

[CreeperTD]

Your Honor,

I am working with the defendant, but it may be difficult for the defendant to find time to retrieve the information for Interrogatory 2 and the court ordered motion to compel.

I request permission/orders from the court for defense counsel to work with the DoC, or whoever is necessary, to retrieve the historical balance and transactional data from Devious355. This will expedite the process of getting the requested information without burdening the Defendant for his time.

Why do you need my permission to contact the Department of Commerce? You are able to do so with or without a court order, support tickets are available to anyone in the discord server.

 

[Im_Wolffyy]

Yes, your honor, just as legal proof of reason to look at another persons financial history. I am not sure how much information the DoC can give out without reason/court orders.

 

[CreeperTD]

Yes, your honor, just as legal proof of reason to look at another persons financial history. I am not sure how much information the DoC can give out without reason/court orders.

You are your client's counsel. Are you not in contact with your client?

 

[Im_Wolffyy]

Yes, Your honor, I am. Just not sure what the DoC will need from me. I can get permission from my client as well. I am waiting on a response from DoC.

 

[edwardcul1en]

Your Honor,
I am respectfully requesting an update here. I would also offer that the Defendant is able to access his own transaction history without the assistance of any government department.

 

[CreeperTD]

Your Honor,
I am respectfully requesting an update here. I would also offer that the Defendant is able to access his own transaction history without the assistance of any government department.

The Defense has all of discovery to fulfill the Plaintiff’s discovery requests and the court order. Unless I am mistaken, that means that the Plaintiff has until tomorrow at 4:46 PM CDT to answer Interrogatory 2 posed by the Plaintiff and to comply with the motion to Compel. Please be patient.

 

[Im_Wolffyy]

Your Honor,

I hereby request an extension of discovery to allow time for the Department of Commerce to assist in gathering the requested specifics. I have had a ticket in with DoC for a few days and am still awaiting help from an agent. Unfortunately, my client is very busy and unable to gather the information for me, so I am constrained to the DoC timeline.

 

[CreeperTD]

Your Honor,

I hereby request an extension of discovery to allow time for the Department of Commerce to assist in gathering the requested specifics. I have had a ticket in with DoC for a few days and am still awaiting help from an agent. Unfortunately, my client is very busy and unable to gather the information for me, so I am constrained to the DoC timeline.

Discovery will remain open for an additional 24 hours, but no more. You must bring this information to the court.

 

[Im_Wolffyy]

Your Honor,

I would like to provide an update on the situation. My client currently has no way to access the game to export the financial data, and the DoC confirmed it would need a court-issued recovery order to collect the data.

At this point, I have no means to gather information required for Interrogatory 2 and all discovery requests. Without a court issued recovery order or further extension to allow time for my client to have access to DC, the Defense cannot provide the answers or facts requested.

Spoiler: DoC Statement

 

[CreeperTD]

Your Honor,

I would like to provide an update on the situation. My client currently has no way to access the game to export the financial data, and the DoC confirmed it would need a court-issued recovery order to collect the data.

At this point, I have no means to gather information required for Interrogatory 2 and all discovery requests. Without a court issued recovery order or further extension to allow time for my client to have access to DC, the Defense cannot provide the answers or facts requested.

Spoiler: DoC Statement

View attachment 100575

It appears to the Court that you need your client’s consent for the DOC to access those records rather than a court order. Is that correct? If so, you must resolve it on your own. Defense Counsel has 6 hours from this post before discovery ends.

 

[Im_Wolffyy]

Your Honor,

I am continuing to seek clarification from the DOC. They have not responded to my messsage sent immediately after your reply. I simply ask for an extension, as I am at the mercy of the DOC in clarifying their policies and requests of me. I do believe the defense has done its full due diligence in attempting to gather the requested financial data; however, I am at a standstill as I wait for the DOC.

 

[CreeperTD]

This attempt to collect evidence is holding up proceedings far too long. The court believes that the evidence would only supplement the factual assertions of the Plaintiff, and are not necessary to reach a verdict.

Discovery has ended. Given that no witnesses have been called, these proceedings shall move straight to closing statements. Plaintiff has 72 hours to submit to submit their Closing Statement.

 

[edwardcul1en]

Objection

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

Your Honor,
Pursuant to Rule 4.8, the Defendant was due to provide a response to the Plaintiff’s Amended Interrogatory 3 within 48 hours. No such response has been filed.

The Plaintiff respectfully seeks a response to this interrogatory before proceeding to Closing Statements.

 

[CreeperTD]

Objection

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

Your Honor,
Pursuant to Rule 4.8, the Defendant was due to provide a response to the Plaintiff’s Amended Interrogatory 3 within 48 hours. No such response has been filed.

The Plaintiff respectfully seeks a response to this interrogatory before proceeding to Closing Statements.

This isn't much of an objection, but rather a request of the court. Defense Counsel has 24 hours to answer this interrogatory before being held in contempt.

 

[CreeperTD]

This isn't much of an objection, but rather a request of the court. Defense Counsel has 24 hours to answer this interrogatory before being held in contempt.

In addition, the Plaintiff's deadline for their Opening Statement is tolled until this is resolved.

 

[Im_Wolffyy]

Your Honor,

Defendant’s counsel can presently verify that Defendant owns no plots, has no regions, and has a current personal balance of $135.51.

The remaining requested information under Bankruptcy Act Part I § 3(1)(e). The further information is not accessible to counsel through ordinary player commands and would require Department of Commerce and/or Staff assistance. Defendant’s limited availability has also made direct retrieval difficult.
If the Court issues an appropriate order authorizing access to those records, counsel expects to obtain and supplement the remaining information within approximately one week.

Defendant acknowledges that Interrogatory 3 may be relevant to potential enforcement of a judgment, particularly Plaintiff’s ability to identify assets available to satisfy any award. However, Defendant respectfully submits that this issue is more appropriately addressed after liability and damages are determined, as Defendant’s current assets do not affect whether Plaintiff is entitled to judgment on the underlying claims.

 

[edwardcul1en]

Your Honor,

In the interest of a timely resolution to this matter, the Plaintiff will not object to what it believes to be a non-responsive answer to Interrogatory 3 by the Defendant. The Plaintiff is prepared to submit a Closing Statement at this time.

 

[CreeperTD]

Your Honor,

In the interest of a timely resolution to this matter, the Plaintiff will not object to what it believes to be a non-responsive answer to Interrogatory 3 by the Defendant. The Plaintiff is prepared to submit a Closing Statement at this time.

You may post when ready, the deadline is back in effect.

 

[edwardcul1en]

Closing Statement

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF REDMONT
CLOSING STATEMENT

Your Honor,

At its core, this matter is a straightforward contract dispute. The evidence before this Court satisfies the requirements of §4 of the Contracts Act. The Plaintiff will avoid belaboring the Court with an enumeration of these elements, as their existence is plainly supported by the record and well within this Court's knowledge.

The Defense attempts to abdicate from their contractual obligations by pointing to a declaration from the Department of Commerce that the Defendant's bid invalid. As defined in the Department of Commerce Auction Policy, a winning bidder found to have insufficient funds forfeits their claim. The policy does not forfeit the winning bidder's obligations under a legally binding contract.

The Defendant's unwillingness to meaningfully participate in discovery further underscores the weakness of his position. Despite the best efforts of his counsel, the Court, and the Plaintiff to obtain necessary information and move this matter toward resolution, the Defendant remained uncooperative. This failure to engage in discovery should be viewed by the Court as yet another indication of the Defendant's disregard for his obligations to the Plaintiff.


Relief

The Plaintiff seeks R$10,000 in punitive damages. While that amount may appear substantial when compared to the compensatory damages sought, it is warranted by the Defendant's conduct.

As established in the facts, the Defendant continued bidding in #marketplace auctions after receiving a 7-day #marketplace ban from the Department of Commerce. By the Defendant's own admission, he did so despite knowing he lacked the funds necessary to honor those bids.

This was not an isolated mistake. The Defendant showed a repeated and deliberate disregard for sellers, the marketplace process, and the Department's enforcement actions. Even after being warned, fined, and banned, the Defendant persisted. He also failed to respond to multiple good-faith notices from the Plaintiff seeking to resolve the matter without Court intervention, choosing instead to continue participating in other auctions.

Smaller penalties have already proven ineffective. Under the RCCA, punitive damages are appropriate to punish outrageous conduct and "deter them and others like them from similar conduct in the future." That standard is met here.

For these reasons, the Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court find in its favor and award the relief sought.

 

[Im_Wolffyy]

Objection

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

OBJECTION — IMPROPER EVIDENCE

Your Honor,

Defendant objects to Plaintiff’s statement in closing that:

“By the Defendant’s own admission, he did so despite knowing he lacked the funds necessary to honor those bids.”

Defendant admitted that he lacked sufficient funds to complete the $3,000 transaction at issue in this case. Defendant did not admit that he knowingly lacked sufficient funds to complete each subsequent auction referenced by Plaintiff.

Plaintiff therefore improperly expands Defendant’s admission beyond what is contained in the record and introduces a new factual assertion during closing.

 

[CreeperTD]

Objection

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

OBJECTION — IMPROPER EVIDENCE

Your Honor,

Defendant objects to Plaintiff’s statement in closing that:

“By the Defendant’s own admission, he did so despite knowing he lacked the funds necessary to honor those bids.”

Defendant admitted that he lacked sufficient funds to complete the $3,000 transaction at issue in this case. Defendant did not admit that he knowingly lacked sufficient funds to complete each subsequent auction referenced by Plaintiff.

Plaintiff therefore improperly expands Defendant’s admission beyond what is contained in the record and introduces a new factual assertion during closing.

Objection overruled. The Guide - Objections defines Improper Evidence: "Refers to evidence that is improperly collected, possibly altered, or presented inappropriately (e.g., new evidence introduced during closing statements)." None of this has occurred. Plaintiff has not introduced new evidence at all. The objection does not apply to what Defense Counsel alleges.

 

[CreeperTD]

Defense has 72 hours to submit a Closing Statement.

 

[Im_Wolffyy]

​

Closing Statement

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CLOSING STATEMENT

Your Honor,

Plaintiff calls this a straightforward contract dispute. In one respect, the Defense agrees. The central question is straightforward:

Did Defendant possess a valid winning bid that created the contractual obligation Plaintiff now seeks to enforce?

The evidence and law show that he did not and this is why this is not a straightforward contract dispute.

I. THE $3,000 BID WAS NOT THE VALID WINNING BID​

Plaintiff's theory begins with the proposition that Defendant's $3,000 bid won the auction and therefore created an enforceable contract.

But Plaintiff's own evidence establishes what happened next.

Defendant lacked sufficient funds. The Department of Commerce determined that the $3,000 bid was invalid due to insufficient funds. Plaintiff then accepted, what the DoC determined, the $1,250 highest valid bid from another bidder. Those facts are not disputed in this case.

Redmont precedent does not hold that every message placed in an auction automatically creates an enforceable purchase contract. In Boomsides and Pepecuu v. Lucaa7377 [2025] FCR 10, the Federal Court expressly stated that precedent makes winning bids legally binding contracts, and declined to treat bids which had never validly won as enforceable contracts.

Here, Defendant's bid was NOT the valid winning bid.

Similarly, in smokeyybunnyyy v. Commonwealth [2024] FCR 103, the Court recognized that bids prohibited under the governing auction rules should be invalidated rather than treated as legitimate bids within the auction process..

Plaintiff cannot have this both ways. The $3,000 bid cannot be invalid for purposes of determining who actually won the auction, while simultaneously remaining the valid winning bid for purposes of collecting contractual damages.

II. PLAINTIFF READS ONLY HALF OF THE AUCTION POLICY​

Plaintiff argues that the Auction Policy merely causes an insufficiently funded bidder to "forfeit their claim," while the contractual obligation stays intact.

But the actual policy goes further.

Where a winning bidder fails to pay or is found to have insufficient funds, that bidder forfeits the claim and "the win will be offered to the next highest valid bidder."

That is exactly what happened here. The win was offered to the next highest bidder.

The Contracts Act requires a valid agreement, and breach under Section 7 requires failure to fulfill a contractual obligation. Section 4 separately requires offer, acceptance, consideration, intent, and capacity before a valid contract exists.

Plaintiff has never identified where, after the Auction Policy removed Defendant's bid and transferred the win to another bidder, Defendant remained contractually obligated to pay Plaintiff the difference between the two bids.

The policy supplies a consequence for insufficient funds: the bidder loses the win, the next valid bidder receives it, and the Department may separately punish the invalid bidder.

That is precisely what occurred. Defendant lost the auction, was fined $1,000, was subjected to a seven-day marketplace restriction, and Plaintiff proceeded with the highest valid bidder.

What Plaintiff is asking in this Court is to add is another term: that the invalid bidder also remains civilly indebted to the seller for the difference.

That term does not appear in the policy Plaintiff relies upon.

III. WHAT HAPPENED AFTERWARD DOES NOT CREATE LIABILITY RETROACTIVELY​

Plaintiff relies heavily on Defendant’s later conduct—both his participation in other auctions and his limited availability during discovery.

Neither proves the contract alleged here existed.

Participating in later auctions does not retroactively make the disputed $3,000 bid valid. Likewise, Defendant’s inability to personally log in and retrieve certain records during litigation does not establish that he was unwilling to cooperate. Counsel responded to discovery, explained the access limitations, and sought other means of obtaining the information. These later events are separate issues and they do not prove liability for the transaction at issue.

IV. THE LATER CONDUCT DOES NOT SUPPORT $10,000 IN PUNITIVE DAMAGES​

Plaintiff next uses Defendant's later marketplace activity to seek $10,000 in punitive damages.

The Redmont Civil Code Act does not permit punitive damages because a defendant behaved poorly in some other respect. Punitive damages require that the conduct causing the Plaintiff's harm be outrageous.

The harm Plaintiff alleges here is the $1,750 difference between the invalid $3,000 bid and the eventual $1,250 sale.

Defendant's later marketplace-ban violations did not cause that difference.

Those actions may properly have consequences through the Department of Commerce, and Defendant does not ask this Court to excuse them. But an administrative violation against the Department is not automatically outrageous conduct causing the $1,750 harm to this Plaintiff.

The same is true of Plaintiff's settlement attempts. Plaintiff sent messages. Defendant did not respond. That may have frustrated Plaintiff, but failure to accept or respond to an extrajudicial settlement offer does not itself establish dishonesty, deception, intent to cause harm, or reckless indifference.

V. CONCLUSION​

Plaintiff must first prove that Defendant was bound by the $3,000 winning-bid contract alleged in the Complaint.

The evidence establishes:

1. Defendant lacked sufficient funds.

2. The Department of Commerce classified the $3,000 bid as invalid.

3. The Auction Policy directs that the win be offered to the next highest valid bidder.

4. Another bidder was recognized as the highest valid bidder.

5. Plaintiff accepted that bidder's $1,250 offer.

6. Everything that occurred afterward does not change those facts.

7. Plaintiff has shown that Defendant placed an invalid bid.

8. Plaintiff has shown that Defendant was punished by the Department for placing that invalid bid.

Plaintiff has not shown that the same invalid bid remained a valid winning-bid contract enforceable for $1,750 in damages.

For those reasons, Defendant respectfully requests that the Court enter judgment in favor of Defendant, deny Plaintiff's requested damages and relief, and award Defendant's counsel the legal fees provided by law.

 

[CreeperTD]

The court now enters recess pending a verdict.

 

[CreeperTD]

Verdict

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
VERDICT
edwardcul1en v. Devious355 [2026] DCR 173

I. PLAINTIFF’S POSITION
Plaintiff alleges that Defendant bid on an auction for $3000, and subsequently was unable to pay for it. Plaintiff then further alleges that this was a valid and winning bid, and that failing to have the requisite funds was a breach of contract that the court is able to enforce. Plaintiff believes that having to go down to the next highest valid bid of $1250 constituted a pecuniary loss of $1750.

II. DEFENDANT’S POSITION
The Defense does not contest that the Defendant placed the bid alleged by the Plaintiff, and that the bid went against the Department of Commerce’s Auction Policy. The Defense insists, however, that the bid was not a valid or winning bid according to the Department’s policy, and that because of this, the legal contract embodied in that bid was rendered null and void. Defense argues that the decision in smokeyybunnyyy v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2024] FCR 103 supports this interpretation, as well.

III. THE COURT’S OPINION
This case is an interesting one, given that a sitting Deputy Secretary of the Department of Commerce is being challenged about their interpretations of DOC Policy by a fairly new lawyer. It would be improper to dwell on this situation for too long in this verdict, and as such the Court shall begin by examining what exactly this Auction Policy states.

The Department of Commerce lists policies on Auctions in two different places (that being on the forums [see Auction Policy] and in the #marketplace Post Guidelines), and, although those two policies don’t always agree, they most certainly do for the parts of the policy which apply here. There are three parts of the DOC’s policy that are relevant to the case and, seeing as those parts were seemingly never quoted in full during the proceedings, the court will do so now:

All bids are legally binding contracts. Bidders are obligated to uphold their stated bid and may not modify or retract a bid once placed

(6) Bidders may not bid more than the total funds currently available in their personal, company, or bank balances. The DOC reserves the right to privately request proof of funds at any time.

(7) Default Winners:
(a) In the event a winning bidder fails to provide payment or is found to have insufficient funds, they forfeit their claim. The win is then transferred to the next highest valid bidder.
(b) If a winning bidder is deported or leaves the server permanently before the transaction is complete, the next highest valid bidder will be declared the winner.

Further, it appears clear that any rules set by the Department of Commerce for #marketplace have the force of law within that channel. Executive Order 4/23 gave the Department the power to regulate the marketplace channel in the first place, stating that “The DoC can create rules [for it].” Unless those regulations were to run contrary to the Constitution or to an Act of Congress, they are valid and enforceable.

The Court will disregard the decision in [2024] FCR 103 simply because the legal argument being made in this case is so far removed from the circumstances of that case. Plaintiff here is arguing simply that the Defendant has a legal obligation to fulfill their bid because it’s considered a legally binding contract. The part of the verdict that could apply to this case is as follows:

The fraudulent bids placed by EddieGonza420 misled the plaintiff into raising their bid, constituting what is known as fraudulent inducement. Since these bids were not permitted under DCT policy, they should have been invalidated, and the plaintiff’s subsequent bids should not have been considered, as they were made under the false belief that EddieGonza420’s bids were legitimate.

What must be considered, however, is the fact that in [2024] FCR 103, the Plaintiff was suing the DCT for failing to annul invalid bids which “artificially raised” the final winning price. Nowhere in these proceedings has the Plaintiff alleged that the bid affected the final winning bid of the auction, only that the bid placed by the Defendant must be enforced.

It seems apparent to this Court that DOC policy does not intend for bids which are, at the time of the bid being placed or at the conclusion of the auction, unable to be paid for, to be considered valid bids, nor are they meant to be enforceable contracts. The DOC states in two different places that if an individual is found to have insufficient funds for their bid, that bid is invalidated, they forfeit “their claim,” which this court interprets as their legal obligation, and that then the only valid, winning bid is the next highest bidder. The court notes that Plaintiff stated that this part of the policy should not be interpreted as such in their Closing Statements, but provides no convincing arguments as to why. Quite disappointing.

What is interesting to note about the Plaintiff’s Prayers for Relief are how they don’t seem to fit with this case. While the Plaintiff asks for compensatory damages amounting to the amount they claim to have lost, what the Plaintiff fails to do is argue why they should be awarded. Given what the Plaintiff has argued before the court, they wish for the Court to hold that the bid was valid, and that as such the Court should enforce the contract. But the Plaintiff seemingly has no desire to have that contract be applied in force! They certainly have not asked the court to enforce it by asking for Specific Performance of the contract, which would remedy the alleged harm in its entirety. As stated before, the Plaintiff has not argued before this court that the Defendant’s actions affected the auction in any way, or that it affected others’ willingness to bid on the auction. While that argument would be much more interesting to sort through, it has not been brought before the Court, and thus cannot be considered.

The Punitive Damages requested by the Plaintiff are not supported by any allegations of outrageous conduct throughout these proceedings, and are therefore ignored entirely. Further, it is not this Court’s responsibility to determine whether or not the DOC’s punishment for breaches of its policies is sufficient. If the Plaintiff does not believe it to be so, they are a DOC Deputy Secretary at this time, and are entirely able to fix it themself.

The request for what is essentially an asset seizure warrant is ignored as being unwarranted within these proceedings.

IV. DECISION
The Court fails to see how the DOC Policy supports the Plaintiff’s case, both in terms of its Claims and its Prayers. The only legal remedy, it appears, for failing to have the requisite funds in one's balance is to have the bid declared invalid. Especially when the Plaintiff has failed to argue how this invalid bid harmed the bidding process in any way, there seems to be nothing within statute, policy, or precedence to support the Plaintiff’s claims. Even if the Court were to find that Defendant’s bid was a legally binding Contract, which it does not, the Plaintiff has not requested for Specific Performance, only Compensatory Damages, which would not remedy the hypothetical broken contract, but rather would unreasonably and illegally demand that the Defendant pay for items that they would never receive, especially since the Plaintiff has already sold the item to another buyer. As such, the Court rules in favor of the Defendant, and finds Plaintiff liable to the Defendant for $3,525.00 in Legal Fees.

The District Court thanks all parties involved. This Court is now adjourned.

So Ordered.