Lawsuit: Adjourned Maxib02 V. ILatteralus [2026] DCR 32

Status
Not open for further replies.

Closing Statement


There isn't much more to say than was brought up in the Defense's Opening Statement, however I will address the points made by the Plaintiff in their Closing Statement.

gert7 said:
First, was a contract signed? The offer - Defendant: "What are you needing done?". Plaintiff: "A Certificate of Incorporation". Defendant: "I can help with both of those" (P-001).
Click to expand...
At this point, the Defense is confident that a contract was signed, however the terms of that contract are in dispute.

gert7 said:
Does paying someone only after a service has been delivered nullify the contract? Let's turn to evidence P-002, in which the Defendant advertised their services to the Plaintiff:

"I'll do these for cheap and if you need Accounting or legal help in the future, or if you know someone else who does, perhaps send them my way"

Here, the Defendant not only promotes legal services, but also services in accounting. As such, they should know that the counting of revenue requires both the receipt of money and the exchange of goods and services, regardless of order. For payment, the Plaintiff sent the Defendant $2000 as clarified in the same evidence. This was not a donation. Under §4(2)(a) of the Contracts Act, the payment was indeed "mirroring the terms of the offer".
Click to expand...
At this point, the Defense finds the timing of the payment in this case is not particularly relevant.

gert7 said:
Now, what about quality of work? As I read through this case, I can't bring myself to accept this defense. Let's look at P-002 once more:

"I'm a real attorney so if I can't figure it out I'm not certain who would be able to."

This isn't an "effort made" or "okay service". To echo the words here: if this isn't an advertisement for the absolute paramount in legal help, what is? It's the kind of glowing endorsement that makes one wonder how the work ended up like this. So what about the quality?
Click to expand...
The statement: "I'm a real attorney so if I can't figure it out I'm not certain who would be able to" is not a Contract, nor is it even a Promise (which is already not legally enforceable).

This is a largely non-provable statement of fact, as Redmontians lack the capabilities to determine the Defendant's IRL job or read his mind.

It doesn't really matter if the Plaintiff's counsel "accepts this defense" (that is, that the contract never guaranteed acceptance of the document by the DoC, only that the document would be written) when it is, in fact, a perfectly reasonable explanation for what occurred.

gert7 said:
If we turn to P-013, the first document produced for United Fruit and Beverage Company, we already see inconsistencies: first, a Certificate of Formation in the title. Early in my career, I was hit by this mistake: forming an LLC under a "Certificate of Incorporation" when it should be one of Formation. Here, the mistake was the other way around. Yet below in the very same document, the first paragraph refers to "This Articles of Incorporation". Subsequently, in P-014, P-015 and P-016, the title of the document was instead changed to "Articles of Incorporation", arguably close enough to "Certificate of Incorporation".
Click to expand...
Making an error does not nullify the fact that a document was created. Furthermore, the Defendant went over and above by fixing the error in later versions of the document.

gert7 said:
In P-016, "Right of First Refusal" is provided as "Maxib02 retains the exclusive right to approve or reject any proposed transfer." Yet this is mislabeled. Right of First Refusal means that if someone wishes to exchange shares for money or something else of value, they would first have to make Maxib02 an equal offer, and only after Maxib's refusal are they are allowed to seek that deal with someone else.
Click to expand...
Again, making an error does not nullify the fact that a document was created. Furthermore, "Right of First Refusal" is not defined by Redmont law, making the clause beneath it the very definition of it in that contract.

gert7 said:
Making mistakes like these, all the while advertising themselves as a very capable lawyer and accountant, the Defendant joined the Plaintiff's annoyance over the DoC's rejection. The document was revised several times until finally, the Defendant disappeared completely, leaving the Plaintiff to pay another firm for the same service.
Click to expand...
Overall, I fail to see how the law was broken. Did the Defendant prove to be an incapable lawyer? Perhaps. Did the Defendant provide a poor service? Maybe.

But did the Defendant provide the documents promised to the Plaintiff in a contract? Yes. Yes he did.

It is clear that the court should rule in favor of the Defense.

 

Verdict


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Verdict- Maxib02 v. ILatteralus [2026] DCR 32

The Prosecution alleges that the Defendant has committed the tort of Breach of Contract through the lack of contact regarding the fixing of an incomplete Certificate of Incorporation that the Defendant was contracted to create. Furthermore, preventing them from enjoying activities within Redmont in their attempt to reestablish contact with the Defendant.

The Defendant rebuts by arguing that, because a document was created and edited multiple times, the Contract had been completed, and that nowhere was it stated that the Contract would be sufficient for acceptance by the DOC.

Opinion of the Court
There is one clear legal issue on mind here: What is “enough” in a contract? For that, we turn to the Contracts Act and to the nature of Contracts itself.

On the Contract
It is not a question before this Court whether the Contract was seen as valid or not. It is agreed upon by both sides that the Contract was valid, with the Court noting it was formed upon Implied terms, with no official written contract being signed. With no clear terms on what constitutes completion of the contract, we must turn to the implied terms. The Prosecution claims that the acceptance of the filing was out of the Plaintiffs' control. The Court finds this false. As a qualified attorney (P-002), it is expected that our Defendant is experienced with the terms found in the Legal Entity Act for company formation (see generally Part 4 of the Legal Entity Act), all the more so when accepting a contract based on those terms. A general expectation of competency is required to establish the capacity to create the contract itself. With this in mind, it is required to exercise a Duty of Good Faith and Fair Dealing in the completion of a contract (Contracts Act Section 12). The Court finds that failing to create a sufficient contract while promising the capacity to do so breaches the Good Faith operations, and by then disappearing, a Breach of Contract had occurred.

On Damages
This Court finds that the compensatory damages for Breach of Contract are valid. 2,000 was both the amount paid in the contract, and shall be mirrored in the restitution for the Breach of Contract. The existing 8 documents, which are deficient despite promised competency, do not diminish these damages.

The Court finds the Consequential Damages are invalid in two regards.

“Loss of Joy”, to be interpreted by this Court as the Consequential Damage “loss of enjoyment,” and shall not be granted as the Plaintiff was not interrupted from performing activities in Redmont in the same way prior to harm (RCCA Part 3 Section 5.III)
The Consequential Damages as a result of contracting an additional party to create the CoI the Plaintiff failed to produce are also invalid. As they do not constitute a valid form of harm cognizable as Consequential Damages.
These damages would be closer to Compensatory damages and would still be invalid, as Compensatory damages are intended to recoup the loss of the contract. The $5,000 is not an additional charge to the contract, but a separate act.

Order of the Court
This Court hereby rules in favor of the Plaintiff and grants the following;
Defendant ILatteralus is liable for

  1. Compensatory Damages in the amount of $2,000.
  2. Legal Fees in the amount of $3,000, the minimum for any case heard by the DCR. (RCCA Part 3 Section 7.2.d)
So Ordered.
Magistrate Malka Aubunny

 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top