Lawsuit: In Session fickogames v. Ollie_MineCraft [2026] DCR 22

1) Yes. I have been unable to repay the loan in full and nearly defaulted on it. Because of that, interest payments have been eating away at my personal finances.
2) I was forced to sell the plot because I could not afford to remodel and operate it myself after purchasing it.

Clerk note: The Court struck both answers.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
emilypancakes22 said:
@fickogames
1. In P-007, you mention that the money you sent to the Defendant came from a loan. Has the Defendant's failure to fulfill their contractual obligations impacted your ability to pay back this loan?
2. D-004 shows you purchasing the plot sometime after the Defendant failed to purchase it. Do you still own C117?

The plaintiff reserves the right to ask follow-up questions.
Click to expand...
1) Yes. I have been unable to repay the loan in full and nearly defaulted on it. Because of that, interest payments have been eating away at my personal finances.
2) I was forced to sell the plot because I could not afford to remodel and operate it myself after purchasing it.
 
fickogames said:
2) I was forced to sell the plot because I could not afford to remodel and operate it myself after purchasing it.
Click to expand...

Objection


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

The question asked was a closed question which should be answered with either yes or no. The witness did not answer the question and instead gave non-required information as testimony. The Defendant respectfully requests this answer be struck and the witness be made to answer the question asked.

 
fickogames said:
1) Yes. I have been unable to repay the loan in full and nearly defaulted on it. Because of that, interest payments have been eating away at my personal finances.
Click to expand...

Objection


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

The question asked was a closed question. The answer "yes" sufficed. Everything else is narrative and the Defendant respectfully requests the rest of the answer be struck.

 
emilypancakes22 said:
@fickogames
1. In P-007, you mention that the money you sent to the Defendant came from a loan. Has the Defendant's failure to fulfill their contractual obligations impacted your ability to pay back this loan?
Click to expand...

Objection


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE, PERJURY

This question assumes that Defendant failed to fulfill their contractual obligations which is not an established fact in this case. Defendant respectfully requests that both this question and any answers given to it be struck.

Furthermore, the Plaintiff states here: "In P-007 you mention that the money you sent to the Defendant came from a loan." This is not true. First of all, the witness had not yet sent any money to Plaintiff at the time of the conversation in P-007 (See Fact 6 of Complaint.) Furthermore, in P-007 the witness does not state at all that the money they sent to the Defendant came from a loan. It is clear that Plaintiff's counsel is aware of P-007 and thus of the fact that this is not true. The Defendant respectfully request that the Plaintiff's counsel be punished appropriately for this misrepresentation of the truth.

 
gribble19 said:

Objection


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

The question asked was a closed question which should be answered with either yes or no. The witness did not answer the question and instead gave non-required information as testimony. The Defendant respectfully requests this answer be struck and the witness be made to answer the question asked.

Click to expand...
Response
Re: Non-Responsive - "I was forced to sell" clearly answers the question. If the witness has sold the plot, then they do not still own it.
Re: Narrative - Nothing about the question asked indicates that the response was only to be a yes or no. Furthermore, the witness's answer is not "lengthy or [a] detailed story", but rather just a single sentence providing relevant details as to why the Defendant no longer owns C117.
gribble19 said:

Objection


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

The question asked was a closed question. The answer "yes" sufficed. Everything else is narrative and the Defendant respectfully requests the rest of the answer be struck.

Click to expand...
Response
Nothing about this question indicates that the response was to only be a yes or no. Furthermore, the witness's answer is not "lengthy or [a] detailed story", but rather two sentences that are relevant to the question being asked.
gribble19 said:

Objection


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE, PERJURY

This question assumes that Defendant failed to fulfill their contractual obligations which is not an established fact in this case. Defendant respectfully requests that both this question and any answers given to it be struck.

Furthermore, the Plaintiff states here: "In P-007 you mention that the money you sent to the Defendant came from a loan." This is not true. First of all, the witness had not yet sent any money to Plaintiff at the time of the conversation in P-007 (See Fact 6 of Complaint.) Furthermore, in P-007 the witness does not state at all that the money they sent to the Defendant came from a loan. It is clear that Plaintiff's counsel is aware of P-007 and thus of the fact that this is not true. The Defendant respectfully request that the Plaintiff's counsel be punished appropriately for this misrepresentation of the truth.

Click to expand...
Response
Re: Assumes Facts Not in Evidence
The Defense has affirmed the fact that the Defendant failed to fulfill their contractual obligations in their Answer to Complaint. Fact 11 of the Defense's Answer states "The Defendant AFFIRMS that on the 21st of February, the Defendant contacted the Plaintiff, informing them that they had been taken on a sudden camping trip by their family and for that reason had been unable to fulfill their contract." (Emphasis mine). This fact is not up for consideration; rather the question before the court is whether or not Force Majeure applies to protect the Defendant from the consequences of failing to fulfill their contractual obligations.
Re: Perjury
The Defense is caught up on a technicality in the wording. Yes, at the time of the conversation shown in P-007, the money had not yet been sent to the Defendant. However, at the time of the question being asked, it had already been sent. As such, "the money [the Plaintiff] sent" is a valid descriptor of the money in question.
In P-007, the plaintiff is seen stating "Im buying the property on a loan". It would be preposterous to assume that the money sent to purchase to the property did not come from the loan taken out for the explicit purpose of purchasing the property.
 
gribble19 said:

Objection


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

The question asked was a closed question which should be answered with either yes or no. The witness did not answer the question and instead gave non-required information as testimony. The Defendant respectfully requests this answer be struck and the witness be made to answer the question asked.

Click to expand...
gribble19 said:

Objection


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

The question asked was a closed question. The answer "yes" sufficed. Everything else is narrative and the Defendant respectfully requests the rest of the answer be struck.

Click to expand...
gribble19 said:

Objection


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE, PERJURY

This question assumes that Defendant failed to fulfill their contractual obligations which is not an established fact in this case. Defendant respectfully requests that both this question and any answers given to it be struck.

Furthermore, the Plaintiff states here: "In P-007 you mention that the money you sent to the Defendant came from a loan." This is not true. First of all, the witness had not yet sent any money to Plaintiff at the time of the conversation in P-007 (See Fact 6 of Complaint.) Furthermore, in P-007 the witness does not state at all that the money they sent to the Defendant came from a loan. It is clear that Plaintiff's counsel is aware of P-007 and thus of the fact that this is not true. The Defendant respectfully request that the Plaintiff's counsel be punished appropriately for this misrepresentation of the truth.

Click to expand...
Narrative (Post No. 104) — Sustained. The question asked whether something has affected the witness, not how it had affected the witness. Answer is stricken. Witness would be ordered to re-answer answer the question directly, except that the question is stricken below for assuming facts not in evidence.

Narrative, Non-responsive (Post No. 103) — Sustained. Question was about whether a plot was owned, not why a transfer occurred. Answer is stricken and Witness is ordered to re-answer the question directly.

Assumes Facts Not in Evidence and Perjury (Post No. 105) — Sustained and Overruled, correspondingly. P-007 appears to contain explicit statements from the Plaintiff asking for money to be sent on the basis of “lending terms” and refers to a future intent to buy a property using money from a loan. This may be money that was ultimately sent, but such does not yet appear to be in the record in testimony or an exhibit (if it is, the Court cannot find it). As such, the Court does not find sufficient reason to consider the statement perjurious, but the question (and thus the answer to it) are both struck in entirety.

(As regarding the alleged failure to fulfill, the Court finds that the admission in Answer section I.11 meets the bar for the assumption of the affirmed fact’s truth within questions to witnesses.)
 
emilypancakes22 said:
@fickogames
1. In P-007, you mention that the money you sent to the Defendant came from a loan. Has the Defendant's failure to fulfill their contractual obligations impacted your ability to pay back this loan?
2. D-004 shows you purchasing the plot sometime after the Defendant failed to purchase it. Do you still own C117?

The plaintiff reserves the right to ask follow-up questions.

Clerk note: Question 1 Stricken by Court
Click to expand...

2. No.
 
fickogames said:
2. No.
Click to expand...
3. P-004 shows you sending $28,000 to the Defendant. It also shows you discussing a mortgage that you took out. How much of the $28,000 that you sent, if any, is from this mortgage?
4. What did you intend to do with plot C117 when you signed the contract with the Defendant?
5. Why do you no longer own C117?

The plaintiff reserves the right to ask follow-up questions.
 
emilypancakes22 said:
3. P-004 shows you sending $28,000 to the Defendant. It also shows you discussing a mortgage that you took out. How much of the $28,000 that you sent, if any, is from this mortgage?
4. What did you intend to do with plot C117 when you signed the contract with the Defendant?
5. Why do you no longer own C117?

The plaintiff reserves the right to ask follow-up questions.
Click to expand...
3. Yes, money is fungible, of course, but that day I got 28,000 from the mortgage, and gave 28,000 to the Defendant. Its fair to say I sent the mortgage money to him.
4. I planned on demolishing the existing structure and building it up more with more "luxury" apartments to rent, which was supposed to then either be rented out by me or sold to another person for what I thought at the time to be major profit.
5. Other interested buyers asked to purchase the plot, due to this lawsuit happening, and the plot not being given to me when it was supposed to be, I was unable to develop it myself, so I was forced to sell it.
 
fickogames said:
3. Yes, money is fungible, of course, but that day I got 28,000 from the mortgage, and gave 28,000 to the Defendant. Its fair to say I sent the mortgage money to him.
4. I planned on demolishing the existing structure and building it up more with more "luxury" apartments to rent, which was supposed to then either be rented out by me or sold to another person for what I thought at the time to be major profit.
5. Other interested buyers asked to purchase the plot, due to this lawsuit happening, and the plot not being given to me when it was supposed to be, I was unable to develop it myself, so I was forced to sell it.
Click to expand...
6. Describe how the defendant's failure to purchase and transfer C117 has or has not impacted your ability to pay back your mortgage.

The plaintiff reserves the right to ask follow-up questions.

Clerk note: Question struck by Court.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
emilypancakes22 said:
6. Describe how the defendant's failure to purchase and transfer C117 has or has not impacted your ability to pay back your mortgage.

The plaintiff reserves the right to ask follow-up questions.
Click to expand...
6. Because I was forced to immediately sell the plot rather than develop it, I've had to pay back the mortgage using just UBI. For that reason, I've been at constant risk of defaulting during the entire course of the trial.

Clerk note: Answer struck by Court.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
fickogames said:
6. Because I was forced to immediately sell the plot rather than develop it, I've had to pay back the mortgage using just UBI. For that reason, I've been at constant risk of defaulting during the entire course of the trial.
Click to expand...
Plaintiff has no further questions for this witness.
 
emilypancakes22 said:
3. P-004 shows you sending $28,000 to the Defendant. It also shows you discussing a mortgage that you took out. How much of the $28,000 that you sent, if any, is from this mortgage?
Click to expand...

Objection


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - PERJURY, ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE, AMBIGUOUS, RELEVANCE

Plaintiff in this question states that P-004 shows the witness discussing a mortgage that they took out. This is not true. The only message regarding a mortgage in P-004 is a message sent by the witness to coshjlose and it reads: "Morgage [sic] is on me so please forward the cash to Ollie as soon as you can and we'll get the morgage [sic] set up later." Nowhere in this message can the witness be seen discussing a mortgage that they took out. This message is clearly regarding a mortgage that they are intending to take out in the future, as it is to be set up later. Further down in P-004 we see that coshjlose was not the one who sent the money to Defendant and that the witness himself was in the fact the one to do so.

The question thus assumes that the witness took out a mortgage, which is not an established fact in this case.

The question is ambiguous for multiple reasons. It refers to "this mortgage" but it is unclear what mortgage this refers to, as we have seen that the previously described mortgage (namely one that was shown to be taken out in P-004) does not exist as such.

The question is furthermore ambiguous because money is fungible and there is no clear way to determine what the origins of the money that was sent are.

Lastly, nowhere in Plaintiff's complaint is a mortgage, loan or anything similar mentioned at all. The Defendant thus fails to see the relevance of this question.


Your Honor, Defendant respectfully requests that this question and any answers given to it be struck for any or all of the above reasons.

 
fickogames said:
4. I planned on demolishing the existing structure and building it up more with more "luxury" apartments to rent, which was supposed to then either be rented out by me or sold to another person for what I thought at the time to be major profit.
Click to expand...

Objection


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - NOTHING PENDING

Your Honor, the Defendant respectfully requests that the part of witnesses answer that is bolded and italicized be struck from the record. The preceding text has already answered the question that was asked and the piece of text in question does not answer the question asked.

 
emilypancakes22 said:
6. Describe how the defendant's failure to purchase and transfer C117 has or has not impacted your ability to pay back your mortgage.
Click to expand...

Objection


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - BREACH OF PROCEDURE, ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE

Your Honor, this is not a question at all, but rather an order. This is a breach of procedure.

Furthermore, this order assumes that the witness has a mortgage, which is not an established fact in this case.

Defendant respectfully requests that this, and any responses given to it by the witness be struck from the record.

 
gribble19 said:

Objection


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - PERJURY, ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE, AMBIGUOUS, RELEVANCE

Plaintiff in this question states that P-004 shows the witness discussing a mortgage that they took out. This is not true. The only message regarding a mortgage in P-004 is a message sent by the witness to coshjlose and it reads: "Morgage [sic] is on me so please forward the cash to Ollie as soon as you can and we'll get the morgage [sic] set up later." Nowhere in this message can the witness be seen discussing a mortgage that they took out. This message is clearly regarding a mortgage that they are intending to take out in the future, as it is to be set up later. Further down in P-004 we see that coshjlose was not the one who sent the money to Defendant and that the witness himself was in the fact the one to do so.

The question thus assumes that the witness took out a mortgage, which is not an established fact in this case.

The question is ambiguous for multiple reasons. It refers to "this mortgage" but it is unclear what mortgage this refers to, as we have seen that the previously described mortgage (namely one that was shown to be taken out in P-004) does not exist as such.

The question is furthermore ambiguous because money is fungible and there is no clear way to determine what the origins of the money that was sent are.

Lastly, nowhere in Plaintiff's complaint is a mortgage, loan or anything similar mentioned at all. The Defendant thus fails to see the relevance of this question.


Your Honor, Defendant respectfully requests that this question and any answers given to it be struck for any or all of the above reasons.

Click to expand...
RESPONSE
Perjury: This represents a misreading of the evidence. The plaintiff's and coshljose's messages clearly indicates that a mortgage had already been agreed to, and that the pending matter for the mortgage is just the production and signing of formal paperwork. The statement "morgage [sic] is on me" makes this clear as the statement is in the past tense. If the plaintiff was only intending to take out a mortgage at a later time, they would have said the mortgage would be on them. Furthermore, coshljose states "will...forward cash when i get back". They would not say they were going to forward cash if no agreement had occured yet. That the plaintiff ultimately sent the money rather than coshljose does not indicate that no mortgage was taken out; rather that at some point in the 17 hours between messages it was decided not to shortcut the path of the money.
Assumes Facts Not In Evidence: I believe the above reasoning is enough to satisfy that P-004 establishes that the Plaintiff took out a mortgage.
Ambiguous: That money is fungible does not preclude the ability to state a source of money. If one were to take out a loan, and then buy some thing using some amount of money they did not have prior to taking out the loan, then it would be fully reasonable to state that the loan was used to buy said thing.
Relevance: The mortgage was not mentioned in the complaint because it was not relevant at that time. The Defense has made the mortgage relevant by incorrectly asserting that the Defendant had offered to make the Plaintiff whole during the Defense's opening statement, a statement which is refuted by the existence of the mortgage.
gribble19 said:

Objection


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - NOTHING PENDING

Your Honor, the Defendant respectfully requests that the part of witnesses answer that is bolded and italicized be struck from the record. The preceding text has already answered the question that was asked and the piece of text in question does not answer the question asked.

Click to expand...
RESPONSE
The question asks what the Plaintiff intended to do with the property. The answer includes that they intended to receive "major profit". The statement does answer the question asked.

gribble19 said:

Objection


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - BREACH OF PROCEDURE, ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE

Your Honor, this is not a question at all, but rather an order. This is a breach of procedure.

Furthermore, this order assumes that the witness has a mortgage, which is not an established fact in this case.

Defendant respectfully requests that this, and any responses given to it by the witness be struck from the record.

Click to expand...
Response
Breach of Procedure: Asking someone to describe something is not an order.
Assumes Facts Not In Evidence: This is the same objection as that made of question 3, and I believe my response to that objection covers this objection as well.
 
gribble19 said:

Objection


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - PERJURY, ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE, AMBIGUOUS, RELEVANCE

Plaintiff in this question states that P-004 shows the witness discussing a mortgage that they took out. This is not true. The only message regarding a mortgage in P-004 is a message sent by the witness to coshjlose and it reads: "Morgage [sic] is on me so please forward the cash to Ollie as soon as you can and we'll get the morgage [sic] set up later." Nowhere in this message can the witness be seen discussing a mortgage that they took out. This message is clearly regarding a mortgage that they are intending to take out in the future, as it is to be set up later. Further down in P-004 we see that coshjlose was not the one who sent the money to Defendant and that the witness himself was in the fact the one to do so.

The question thus assumes that the witness took out a mortgage, which is not an established fact in this case.

The question is ambiguous for multiple reasons. It refers to "this mortgage" but it is unclear what mortgage this refers to, as we have seen that the previously described mortgage (namely one that was shown to be taken out in P-004) does not exist as such.

The question is furthermore ambiguous because money is fungible and there is no clear way to determine what the origins of the money that was sent are.

Lastly, nowhere in Plaintiff's complaint is a mortgage, loan or anything similar mentioned at all. The Defendant thus fails to see the relevance of this question.


Your Honor, Defendant respectfully requests that this question and any answers given to it be struck for any or all of the above reasons.

Click to expand...
Overruled. Defense's response sufficiently rebuts every one of these objection types.
gribble19 said:

Objection


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - NOTHING PENDING

Your Honor, the Defendant respectfully requests that the part of witnesses answer that is bolded and italicized be struck from the record. The preceding text has already answered the question that was asked and the piece of text in question does not answer the question asked.

Click to expand...
Overruled. Profit motive is plausibly responsive to intent.
gribble19 said:

Objection


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - BREACH OF PROCEDURE, ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE

Your Honor, this is not a question at all, but rather an order. This is a breach of procedure.

Furthermore, this order assumes that the witness has a mortgage, which is not an established fact in this case.

Defendant respectfully requests that this, and any responses given to it by the witness be struck from the record.

Click to expand...
Sustained. Questions must be questions. Question and answer are struck. Seeing as this may have affected declaration that Plaintiff had "no further questions", Plaintiff may continue to ask follow-ups.
 
fickogames said:
6. Because I was forced to immediately sell the plot rather than develop it, I've had to pay back the mortgage using just UBI. For that reason, I've been at constant risk of defaulting during the entire course of the trial.

Clerk note: Answer struck by Court.
Click to expand...
7. How, if at all, has the Defendant's failure to purchase and transfer C117 affected your ability to pay back your mortgage?
 
emilypancakes22 said:
7. How, if at all, has the Defendant's failure to purchase and transfer C117 affected your ability to pay back your mortgage?
Click to expand...
7. Because I was forced to immediately sell the plot rather than develop it, I've had to pay back the mortgage using just UBI. For that reason, I've been at a risk of defaulting during the entire course of the trial.
 

Motion


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION FOR RE-EXAMINATION

Your Honor, the Defendant is aware that this may be an unusual request, but for the sake of fairness finds it an important request to make regardless. It should be clear from the fact that the witness is also the Plaintiff that the witness is an adverse witness to the Defendant. During Cross-examination by Plaintiff of this witness, new information has come up. This is of course normal and not problematic. However, witnesses answers to certain questions make very little sense at all and do not appear consistent.

The Defendant respectfully requests to be allowed to re-examine the witness after the cross-examination has ended, solely being allowed to ask questions relating to the answers given by the witness during cross-examination, in order to clarify ambiguity and clear up inconsistencies.

 
gribble19 said:

Motion


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION FOR RE-EXAMINATION

Your Honor, the Defendant is aware that this may be an unusual request, but for the sake of fairness finds it an important request to make regardless. It should be clear from the fact that the witness is also the Plaintiff that the witness is an adverse witness to the Defendant. During Cross-examination by Plaintiff of this witness, new information has come up. This is of course normal and not problematic. However, witnesses answers to certain questions make very little sense at all and do not appear consistent.

The Defendant respectfully requests to be allowed to re-examine the witness after the cross-examination has ended, solely being allowed to ask questions relating to the answers given by the witness during cross-examination, in order to clarify ambiguity and clear up inconsistencies.

Click to expand...
RESPONSE
No such motion type exists nor does the Court Rules & Procedures establish re-examination as existing. To the best of the Plaintiff's knowledge, there is also no precedent establishing such a thing.

Defense claims that the current witness is an adverse witness despite the Defense having called the witness themself. Defense further claims that the witness's answers are non-sensical or inconsistent but fails to make use of the actual established remedy for such a problem: objecting to the witness's allegedly inconsistent answers.

For these reasons, the Plaintiff respectfully requests that the court deny this request and this trial be allowed to progress to the next witness.
 
gribble19 said:

Motion


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION FOR RE-EXAMINATION

Your Honor, the Defendant is aware that this may be an unusual request, but for the sake of fairness finds it an important request to make regardless. It should be clear from the fact that the witness is also the Plaintiff that the witness is an adverse witness to the Defendant. During Cross-examination by Plaintiff of this witness, new information has come up. This is of course normal and not problematic. However, witnesses answers to certain questions make very little sense at all and do not appear consistent.

The Defendant respectfully requests to be allowed to re-examine the witness after the cross-examination has ended, solely being allowed to ask questions relating to the answers given by the witness during cross-examination, in order to clarify ambiguity and clear up inconsistencies.

Click to expand...
Denied. "Absent applicable precedent, the Court requires extraordinary reasons to accept a novel motion filing type" (emmythegremlin v. roy405 [2026] DCR 24, Order at Post No. 85). The Court does not see extraordinary reasons pleaded here; the witness being adverse was known ahead of time and answers being allegedly nonsensical or inconsistent are insufficiently pleaded.
 
emilypancakes22 said:
For these reasons, the Plaintiff respectfully requests that the court deny this request and this trial be allowed to progress to the next witness.
Click to expand...
The Court takes this to mean that there are no further questions on cross for the Plaintiff-witness. As such, the Defense (@gribble19) will have 48 hours to present questions on direct examination to their next witness, who is the Defendant-Witness.
 
Franciscus said:
The Court takes this to mean that there are no further questions on cross for the Plaintiff-witness. As such, the Defense (@gribble19) will have 48 hours to present questions on direct examination to their next witness, who is the Defendant-Witness.
Click to expand...
@gribble19, do you intend to not question the second witness?
 

Objection


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - BREACH OF PROCEDURE
It has now been 72 hours since the Defense was instructed to post questions for their second witness and 24 hours since Your Honor pinged the Defense. The Defense has posted neither questions nor a request for extension. Plaintiff respectfully asks that the Defense's silence be treated as confirmation that they have no questions for the witness and that the trial continue on to Closing Statements. The Plaintiff does not request to cross-examine this witness if the Defense has no questions for him.

 
emilypancakes22 said:

Objection


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - BREACH OF PROCEDURE
It has now been 72 hours since the Defense was instructed to post questions for their second witness and 24 hours since Your Honor pinged the Defense. The Defense has posted neither questions nor a request for extension. Plaintiff respectfully asks that the Defense's silence be treated as confirmation that they have no questions for the witness and that the trial continue on to Closing Statements. The Plaintiff does not request to cross-examine this witness if the Defense has no questions for him.

Click to expand...
Sustained. The Plaintiff has 72 hours to present a closing statement.
 

Closing Statement


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CLOSING STATEMENT

Your Honor, the matter before this court rests on one primary question. Did the sudden and unexpected camping trip that the Defendant was taken on nullify the contract between the Defendant and the Plaintiff? The Plaintiff argues that it did not. The Plaintiff will also show that no other arguments made by the Defense hold any merit and that punitive damages are justified by the Defendant's conduct.

I. FORCE MAJEURE
Section 14 Subsection 15 of the Contracts Act defines force majeure as "a legal term that describes unforeseeable circumstances or events beyond the control of contractual parties, making it impossible for them to fulfill their obligations." The requirements of a force majeure event are further described in Section 13. Let us consider the full definition to understand why it does not apply in this case.

That the Defendant was taken on a camping trip sometime after the signing of the contract is not in dispute, nor is the inability of the Defendant to have contacted the Plaintiff during said trip in dispute. The camping trip bears a striking resemblance to a force majeure event, as it was unforeseeable and beyond the control of the Defendant. Considering the trip lasted a week (P-008), it is also reasonable to say that it was impossible for the Defendant to complete all of his contractual obligations. Just considering the definition from Section 14, the trip would seem to be a force majeure event. However, the trip fails to meet the requirements outlined in Section 13.

I.I Section 13 Subsection 1 - Notification and Mitigation
Subsection 1 requires the affected party to "promptly inform the other party and diligently take steps to minimise its impact on the contract." P-008 shows the Defendant promptly contacting the Plaintiff, but it does not show the Defendant taking steps to minimize the impact of the camping trip. Let us consider what the expected outcome of this event should have been.

At 10:26 CST on the 15th of February, the Plaintiff sent $28,000 to the Defendant as outlined in the contract. Within a minute, the Defendant pinged the DCT Officer hosting the auction stating that he had the money in his account (P-004, P-005). At this point, the Defendant needed to do nothing else to receive the plot, as the DCT is able to collect money and transfer plots without input from the buyer. Therefore, when the Defendant left on the camping trip, they still should have been able to purchase the plot. From there, they would be able to minimize the impact on the contract by transferring the plot when they returned.

However, this not what happened. When the DCT Officer checked the balance of the Defendant, they found that the Defendant only had $17.38 in his balance. This means that at some point during the approximately 5 hours and 45 minutes between the Defendant's pinging of the DCT Officer and the DCT Officer checking his balance, the Defendant removed at least $27,982.62 from his account. It is still unclear what happened to this money, as the Defense has offered no explanation let alone evidence. That being said, it can be argued that because the camping trip and the disappearance of at least $27,982.62 are unrelated, that it cannot be found that the Defendant failed to mitigate. After all, the Defendant did offer to pay the Plaintiff $28,000 after returning from his camping trip. The Defense has alleged that this would make the Plaintiff whole, however this would not have been the case.

P-001 shows the contract signed by both parties to this case. In it, the third term states the Defendant owes the Plaintiff $40,000 if the contract is breached. $28,000 is not enough to make the Plaintiff whole, especially considering they had a mortgage to pay off, they lost potential earnings from the property, and that they were forced to hire legal representation due to the Defendant's actions. The Plaintiff has also been at risk of serious financial damage due to the potential of defaulting on their mortgage during this trial.

I.II Section 13 Subsection 2 - Temporary Suspension
Subsection 2 states "During a force majeure event, the affected party may temporarily suspend contractual duties to the extent that the situation significantly hinders their ability to fulfill obligations." Let us accept for a moment the argument that the camping trip qualified as a force majeure event. This means that any part of the contract which is significantly hindered by the camping trip would be suspended for the duration of the trip. Consider that the fulfillment of the contract would go as follows:
1) The Plaintiff would send the Defendant $28,000.
2) The Defendant would notify the DCT Officer that he now had sufficient funds to purchase C117.
3) The DCT Officer would /fine the Defendant and transfer C117.
4) The Defendant would transfer C117 to the Plaintiff.

During the camping trip, the Defendant did not have internet. This means that any part of the contract which required the Defendant to take action would be suspended. As the Defendant had already pinged the DCT Officer prior to the camping trip, this means only the fourth step outlined above would be significantly hindered. For that reason, only the second term of the contract (and, by extension, the 2 day stipulation present in the third term) would be suspended. Considering the Defendant breached the first term of the contract, this means that even if the camping trip qualified as a force majeure event, the Defendant would still be liable for the breach.

I.III Section 13 Subsection 3 - Termination Right
Subsection 3 states that "Should the force majeure event persist, either party retains the right to terminate the contract without incurring liability." It does not specify for how long an event must persist for this right to be retained. If we interpret this charitably for the Defense and state that the week long camping trip was long enough for the right to terminate to be retained and we accept the false premise that the camping trip qualified as a force majeure event, this is still not enough to nullify the contract. Subsection 3 only states that the right to terminate is retained, not that it is automatically used. At no point during the Plaintiff and Defendant's conversation after the breach (seen in P-008, P-009, and D-001) does the Defendant invoke their right to terminate the contract.

I.IV Section 13 Subsection 4
Subsection 4 states that "Bankruptcy and other events where there has been negligence, acceptance of unnecessary risk, or mismanagement are not considered force majeure events." It has at this point been established that the Defendant breached the first term of the contract by failing to purchase C117. The reason why is that he removed at least $27,982.62 from his account prior to the purchase going through. The Defense has offered zero explanation for why this was done or where the money went. For that reason, the Plaintiff is forced to all possible reasons for the Defendant's actions to show that, on a balance of probabilities, force majeure does not apply.

First, consider the possibility that the Defendant in good faith assumed the plot had already been transferred and that he was now free to use his account balance for whatever purpose he chose. This would represent a case of extreme negligence and thusly make it so that the camping trip can no longer qualify as a force majeure event. In order to make this assumption, the Defendant would need to ignore both that his balance had not significantly changed and that he had received no notice that the purchase had gone through. Perhaps the Defendant did not know that the DCT taking the money for the plot would automatically send mail to him. However, P-005 shows the Defendant asking for the DCT Officer to let him know when the plot was transferred. It would be unreasonably negligent for him to assume the plot had been purchased when he was yet to receive a notification he specifically asked for. Furthermore, this explanation would require the Defendant to have chosen not to transfer the plot despite believing he already owned it, since attempting to do so would obviously reveal he did not yet own it. Choosing not to transfer the plot while believeing he owned it represents an acceptance of unnecessary risk, further supporting the argument that force majeure does not apply under Subsection 4.

The second and third possibilities are that the Defendant intentionally used the money he was sent knowing the plot had yet to have been purchased, either due to acting in bad faith and intentionally choosing to breach the contract or due to the Defendant intending to later return his account balance to be above or equal to $28,000. In the case of the former, force majeure would obviously not apply as failure to purchase a property while intending to breach the contract is not an unforeseeable circumstance. In the case of the latter, choosing to remove at least $27,982.62 from his account represents an acceptance of unnecessary risk on the part of the Defendant. That risk was then realized when the camping trip prevented the Defendant from returning his account balance to be at or above $28,000. Furthermore, there is an implied term in the contract that would be breached by using the money for some other purpose regardless of whether or not the Defendant intended to still purchase the property. This is further argued later in this closing statement.

The fourth and final possibility is that the money was somehow removed from the Defendant's account by some third party. The only third party that can remove money from people's accounts is the Commonwealth. This would mean that the Defendant took some action that warranted him being fined for at least $27,982.62. As government fines are used solely for collecting payment (such as what would have occurred had the Defendant had to requisite funds in his account when the DCT Officer checked his balance) and for penalizing criminals, it is clear that in order to be fined the Defendant would have had to take some intentional action. If the Defendant made a purchase and was fined in order to pay for it, that would return us to one of the prior explanations. If instead the Defendant committed some crime and was fined for it, that would certainly qualify as negligence or the acceptance of unnecessary risk, depending on whether or not the Defendant was aware he committed a crime.

Under all possible explanations for the Defendant's actions (including any combination of these possible explanations), it is clear that force majeure does not apply. For the at least $27,982.62 to have left the Defendant's account, he would have needed to act with negligence and/or accept unnecessary risk.

II. OTHER CLAIMS MADE BY THE DEFENSE
II.I The Defendant's Usage of the Money Was Not Valid
Defense claims that the Defendant was in no way obligated to use the $28,000 sent to him solely to purchase C117. This argument in multiple ways. Firstly, it ignores the implied terms of the contract. The Defendant was sent the exact amount required to complete the purchase. Furthermore, the Defendant did not have enough money to complete the purchase without the $28,000 sent by the Plaintiff. It is fully reasonable to read an implied term that the $28,000 was solely to be used for purchasing the plot and no other purpose. This implied term is further supported by Section 12 of the Contracts Act: Duty of Good Faith and Fair Dealing. The Defendant could not afford the plot on his own (as shown in P-002). Using the at least $27,982.62 necessarily came at the cost of his ability to fulfill his contractual obligations. Willingly choosing to do so is not acting "with honesty, integrity, and fairness".

II.II Section 9 Termination of Contract Does Not Apply
The Defense has also claimed that the contract was terminated under Section 9 of the Contracts Act, specifically Subsection 1 which states "A contract may be terminated by mutual agreement, successful performance, frustration, or due to a material breach." The Defense claims that frustration occurred and resulted in the termination. However this is not the case. D-004 shows that C117 was purchased by the Plaintiff on the 20th of February. P-004 shows that the Plaintiff sent the Defendant $28,000 on the 15th of February. The first term of the contract states that the Defendant had two days to purchase the property after receiving the money. Two days after the money was sent to the Defendant was on the 17th of February, a whole three days before the Plaintiff purchased the plot themself. This means that the breach of contract occurred prior to the frustration the Defense claims occurred.

III. PUNITIVE DAMAGES
As part of the Prayer for Relief, Plaintiff seeks punitive damages. Punitive damages are rewarded in the case of outrageous conduct, which applies in this case. The contract was breached due to the Defendant's removal of at least $27,982.62 from his account. Recall the four possible explanations for the Defendant's actions discussed earlier.

The first possibility, using the money under the false assumption that the plot had already been purchased, represents gross negligence, which is outrageous conduct under the Redmont Civil Code Act Part III Section 3 Subsection 2b.vi. The second possibility was that the Defendant knowingly chose to act in bad faith with the intention of breaching the contract. This meets the definition of outrageous conduct under Subsections 2b.i, 2b.ii and 2b.iv. The third possibility was that the Defendant intended to return the money to his account, but still chose to unnecessarily remove it. This meets the definition under subsections 2b.iii and 2b.vi. The fourth possibility, that the Defendant committed some crime and was fined accordingly, meets the definition of outrageous conduct under Subsections 2b.ii, 2b.iii, and/or 2b.vi. Under all possible explanations for the Defendant's actions (including any combination of explanations), punitive damages are applicable.

Subsection 3 of Part III Section 3 describes the reasons punitive damages may be reduced. The only step that has been taken to remedy the harm to the Plaintiff was the offer to return $28,000. It has already been explained why that is not enough to cover all of the harm that has occurred as a result of the Defendant's actions, something which the Defendant was aware of. The Defendant has also at no point showed genuine remorse. He has only offered excuses, claiming it isn't his fault.

IV. CONCLUSION
The Defendant's conduct represents negligence and/or the acceptance of unnecessary risk, which prevents the use of a force majeure defense. This conduct also qualifies as outrageous and, as such, punitive damages apply. Because force majeure does not apply, the Contract was breached before any potential frustration occurred. For these reasons, the Plaintiff asks upon the Court to rule in our favor and grant our Prayer for Relief in full.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top