Lawsuit: In Session TuffCapital v. RazCreative [2026] FCR 70

Writ of Summons

@Raz0Baz0 is hereby commanded to draw hither to the Federal Court for the case TuffCapital v. Razcreative [2026] FCR 70

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.

Response

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

TuffCapital
Plaintiff

v.

RazCreative
Defendant

I. Answer to Complaint

1. The Defense affirms that Raz0Baz0 seeked a contract with TuffCapital to fund the start up of the Company.

2. The Defense affirms that both TuffCapital and Raz0Baz0 on behalf of RazCreative agreed to a contract regarding capital investment.

3. The Defense affirms that the Contract stipulates that TuffCapital would issue a 5000 DCC capital investment to RazCreative.

4. The Defense affirms that the Contract stipulates that TuffCapital would issue a 800 DCC capital investment to RazCreative to be used by Raz0Baz0 to rent the plot cbd028 for 28 days. (P-003)

5. The Defense affirms that the Contract stipulates that Raz0Baz0 would receive the leasing rights to cbd028. (P-003)

6. The Defense affirms that the leasing rights were valued at 2000 DCC in the contract.

7. The Defense affirms that at the time of signing, RazCreative was valued at 26,000 DCC. (P-003)

8. The Defense affirms that the investment made by TuffCapital into RazCreative would have amounted to a 30% equity in the company.

9. The Defense denies that it was agreed in a Discord chat between Raz0Baz0 and TuffCapital that TuffCapital would receive 30% of all profits of RazCreative.

10. The Defense denies that the plaintiff has made multiple attempts to resolve this without court intervention.

11. The Defense affirms that the balance of RazCreative at the time of filing was 30.15 DCC.

12. The Defense affirms that the balance of Raz0Baz0 was at the time of filing 247,225.33 DCC.

13. The Defense affirms that RazCreative has disclosed sales amounting to 96,000 DCC.

14. The Defense affirms that RazCreative was contractually obligated to disclose all sales to TuffCapital in the ticket.

15. The Defense denies that RazCreative or Raz0Baz0 on behalf of it did not disclose all sales without being asked by TuffCapital to do so.

16. The Defense denies that Raz0Baz0 on behalf of RazCreative agreed in the contract to maintain a balance of 800 DCC to cover one (1) month’s rent of cbd028.

17. The Defense affirms that RazCreative or Raz0Baz0 has not paid anything to TuffCapital.

18. The Defense denies that TuffCapital has suffered significant financial losses due to Raz0Baz0 breaching the contract agreed to by both parties.

19. The Defense denies that RazCreative was contractually obligated to keep one (1) month’s rent in the balance but failed to do so, causing the plaintiff to lose the plot to the Government of Redmont.

20. The Defense denies that due to the balances stated in facts 11, 12 and 13, it is most likely true that the profits made from artwork sales or other business activities conducted by RazCreative were credited to Raz0Baz0’s personal bank account.

21. The Defense denies that the losses caused by Raz0Baz0 depriving TuffCapital of their rightfully earned profits could have yielded a profit of 3.5% if invested in a financial institution.

II. Defenses

1. The contract that the Defendant agreed to stipulates that he must maintain accurate payment records and update the Plaintiff promptly. With the Plaintiff's own evidence, we can see that the Defendant did, in fact, over the course of multiple days, update the Plaintiff on what they had sold just as they were required to. The Plaintiff has not shown any evidence of additional prompting; and even if such evidence were to be provided, the Defendant would still have ultimately supplied the Plaintiff with accurate total transaction history over multiple days. This term of the contract was not breached.

2. Equity does not automatically equal profit. While the Plaintiff owns 30% equity, they are not automatically entitled to 30% royalties on all sales. The signed contract does not specify that the Plaintiff is entitled to any royalties. The Plaintiff has not proven that any dividends were paid out that they may be entitled to. Additionally, the Plaintiff alleges that they could have yielded a 3.5% return on this sum if it was invested in a bank. No evidence supporting this claim has been provided.

3. The Plaintiff states that "the Defendant outrageously neglected paying rent on Cbd028, causing the Plaintiff to lose the plot." If the Defendant was the individual responsible for paying rent as P-003 stipulates, the Plaintiff did not lose the plot; the Defendant did. This harms the Defendant, not the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff has not proven that they were substantially harmed by the loss of this plot.

4. Failing to meet contractual obligations constitutes a breach of contract, not Failure to Deliver Goods or Services. While these two may at times overlap, the Plaintiff has failed to allege any specific good or service that was not delivered, merely claiming that "the Defendant failed to meet their contractual obligations". The Plaintiff has already accused the Defendant of breach of contract. This is an attempt to tack on another charge to squeeze as much money out of the Defendant as possible.


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 11th day of August, 2026