Lawsuit: Pending amah853 v. SteelBirch6844 [2026] DCR 174

amah853 said:

Case Filing

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

CIVIL ACTION

amah853
Plaintiff

v.

SteelBirch6844 / ._.aahh
Defendant

COMPLAINT

The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF

I was hired by SteelBirch6844 to make a Discord bot for their business. We talked for a while about what features they wanted and how much it would cost. At first they wanted more features, but later they decided they only wanted a smaller package for now and would upgrade later.

We agreed that the smaller package would cost DC$1,000. I then made a written contract that explained what was included, how payment worked, and how they could accept it.

I sent them the contract and told them that they could copy the acceptance message and change the username to theirs. They then sent the message, “I, SteelBirch6844, have read and agree to the terms of this Agreement.”

After that, they asked questions about the agreement, including whether the payment was one-time and whether they would get the source code.

The contract says that the DC$1,000 payment is due once the agreement is accepted. I later asked them to pay the DC$1,000, but they did not pay it. They said they did not need the bot yet and later argued that they did not accept the contract because they put quotation marks around the acceptance message.

From my perspective, they accepted the contract because they sent the exact acceptance statement right after I told them how to accept it and then continued talking about how the agreement would work.

I am asking the Court to require them to pay the DC$1,000 that is currently due under the agreement, along with any legal fees or other relief the Court finds appropriate.

I. PARTIES

1. The Plaintiff, amah853, is a citizen of the Commonwealth of Redmont and is the developer identified in the Agreement underlying this action.
2. The Defendant, SteelBirch6844 / ._.aahh, is a citizen of the Commonwealth of Redmont and is the client identified in the Agreement.

II. FACTS

1. On or before September 14, 2026, the Plaintiff and Defendant began negotiating the development of a Discord bot for the Defendant's business.
2. The Defendant requested a bot for a food-related business and discussed a number of desired commands and features with the Plaintiff.
3. During the negotiations, the Defendant initially considered a larger package containing numerous features.
4. The parties subsequently negotiated the scope and price downward.
5. At one point, the Defendant stated that they only needed three features and referenced the lower-priced starter package.
6. The Plaintiff and Defendant continued negotiating until the proposed arrangement became an initial limited package followed by the opportunity and contractual obligation to receive an expanded package at a later date.
7. The Plaintiff prepared a written Bot Development, Software License, Deferred Upgrade, and Services Agreement ("Agreement").
8. The Agreement identifies amah853 as the Developer and SteelBirch6844 / ._.aahh as the Client.
9. Under Section 3.2 of the Agreement, the Initial Package principally consists of:

a. /order;

b. /menu; and

c. pricing-management functionality.

1. Section 4.1 of the Agreement requires the Defendant to pay DC$1,000 as consideration for development and licensing of the Initial Package.
2. Section 4.2 states that the Initial Fee becomes due upon acceptance of the Agreement unless the parties expressly agree otherwise.
3. Section 3.1 provides that the Plaintiff shall provide access to the Initial Package following payment of the Initial Fee.
4. Section 4.3 further permits the Plaintiff to condition deployment, licensing, activation, or continued operation of the Initial Package upon receipt of the Initial Fee.
5. The Agreement separately establishes a DC$5,000 Upgrade Fee scheduled to become due on October 1, 2026.
6. Section 24 of the Agreement provides for digital acceptance.
7. Section 24.2 expressly states that the Defendant may accept the Agreement by transmitting the following statement, or another statement unambiguously communicating agreement:

"I, SteelBirch6844, have read and agree to the terms of this Agreement."

1. On September 14, 2026, the Plaintiff transmitted the written Agreement to the Defendant.
2. Immediately thereafter, the Plaintiff told the Defendant:

"you can copy my message and change the username for yours"

1. The Defendant then transmitted:

"I, SteelBirch6844, have read and agree to the terms of this Agreement."

1. The Defendant placed quotation marks around the acceptance statement.
2. The message nevertheless reproduced the Agreement's prescribed acceptance language, used the Defendant's own username, and was sent immediately after the Plaintiff specifically explained how the Defendant could execute the Agreement.
3. Immediately afterward, the Defendant continued discussing the Agreement.
4. Among other things, the Defendant asked:

"This is One time right"

1. The Defendant also asked whether the Plaintiff and associated business sold the source code.
2. At no point during that immediate exchange did the Defendant state that the acceptance message was merely an example, draft, quotation for discussion, or rejection of the Agreement.
3. The Plaintiff reasonably understood the Defendant's communication and subsequent conduct as acceptance of the Agreement.
4. The Plaintiff had also already performed substantial development work relating to the bot during the parties' discussions.
5. On September 16, 2026, after the DC$1,000 remained unpaid, the Plaintiff requested payment from the Defendant.
6. The Defendant responded:

"I don't really need it rn"

and subsequently:

"Yet"

1. The Plaintiff later again informed the Defendant that they had accepted the contract and requested payment.
2. The Defendant then disputed formation of the Agreement, stating:

"I did not"

followed by:

"I put it in qoutes"

1. The parties continued discussing the dispute.
2. During that discussion, the Defendant acknowledged:

"It was my fault for not clarifying"

1. The Defendant further stated:

"We can argue the binding legality of that sentence or we can wait till the bot is needed"

1. The Defendant explained that they were primarily concerned about paying for hosting while the bot was not being used.
2. riniki_ subsequently stated that the Defendant would be placed on a wait-list and told the Defendant to message when the bot was needed.
3. The written Agreement, however, is expressly between amah853 and SteelBirch6844 / ._.aahh.
4. The Plaintiff did not expressly state in that conversation that the Defendant's existing DC$1,000 payment obligation was cancelled, waived, released, or extinguished.
5. Section 20.3 of the Agreement provides that a later modification must be mutually agreed and that a Discord message may constitute a written modification where the changed term and both parties' assent are sufficiently clear.
6. Section 15.2 provides that a cancellation request does not automatically extinguish obligations already incurred under the Agreement.
7. Section 15.4 further provides that negotiating a downgrade, reduced price, settlement, alternative feature package, or other compromise does not itself constitute a waiver or release unless the parties mutually agree to the modification.
8. Section 17 similarly provides that negotiating a lower price, delayed payment, reduced scope, downgrade, settlement, or compromise does not by itself constitute abandonment of contractual rights.
9. The Defendant has not paid the DC$1,000 Initial Fee.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

COUNT I - BREACH OF CONTRACT

1. The Plaintiff incorporates Paragraphs 1–43 above.
2. Under Section 4 of the Contracts Act, a valid contract requires offer, acceptance, consideration, intent, and capacity. Redmont courts continue to apply this five-part formation test. See Noadenmark v. Zombie_Bro_ [2026] DCR 37; Multiman155 et al. v. slapout [2026] FCR 52.
3. Offer. The written Agreement constituted a clear offer setting forth the parties, services to be provided, functionality, payment obligations, licensing restrictions, future upgrade obligations, and method of acceptance.
4. Acceptance. The Defendant transmitted the exact acceptance statement prescribed by the Agreement immediately after the Plaintiff explained how the Defendant could digitally execute it.
5. Although the Defendant placed quotation marks around that statement, contractual acceptance is evaluated through the communication and surrounding circumstances.
6. Immediately before the Defendant sent the statement, the Plaintiff specifically instructed the Defendant to copy the acceptance language and substitute their username.
7. The Defendant did precisely that.
8. Immediately afterward, the Defendant continued asking questions concerning payment and source-code ownership under the Agreement rather than communicating rejection.
9. The Defendant's communication and subsequent conduct therefore constitute evidence of a positive and unambiguous acceptance when viewed objectively and in context.
10. Redmont courts have recognized that intent and agreement may be demonstrated by surrounding negotiations and subsequent conduct. See Multiman155 et al. v. slapout [2026] FCR 52.
11. Consideration. The Plaintiff agreed to develop and license software functionality to the Defendant, while the Defendant agreed to pay DC$1,000 for the Initial Package.
12. Intent. The parties engaged in extensive negotiations concerning features, price, package structure, future upgrades, software licensing, and execution of a formal written Agreement.
13. The Defendant's execution of the prescribed acceptance statement and subsequent questions concerning the Agreement further demonstrate objective intent to enter legal relations.
14. Capacity. There is no evidence known to the Plaintiff demonstrating that either party lacked capacity to enter the Agreement.
15. Accordingly, the requirements for formation of a valid and enforceable contract were satisfied.
16. The Redmont Civil Code Act recognizes breach of contract where a person fails, without lawful excuse, to perform obligations under a valid and enforceable contract. The violation is one of strict liability. See Noadenmark v. Zombie_Bro_ [2026] DCR 37.
17. Under Section 4.2 of the Agreement, the Defendant's DC$1,000 Initial Fee became due upon acceptance.
18. The Defendant has failed to make that payment.
19. The Defendant's statement that they did not presently need the bot does not itself discharge an existing contractual payment obligation.
20. Nor does the subsequent wait-list discussion establish an unambiguous mutual modification extinguishing the Initial Fee.
21. The Plaintiff never expressly agreed to waive the DC$1,000 payment obligation.
22. The Defendant's continuing failure to pay the Initial Fee therefore constitutes breach of contract.
23. The Plaintiff has suffered a direct financial loss of DC$1,000, representing the contractual payment presently due and unpaid.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:

1. DC$1,000 in compensatory damages, representing the Initial Fee presently due and unpaid under the Agreement.
2. Legal fees pursuant to Part III, Section 7 of the Redmont Civil Code Act, including the applicable District Court minimum where authorized.
3. Any other relief the Court finds just and proper.

The Plaintiff expressly does not seek in this action any contractual obligation that had not yet become due at the time the present breach arose, including the DC$5,000 Upgrade Fee or contractual hourly late charges associated with that Upgrade Fee.

EVIDENCE

P-001 - Bot Development Agreement

The written Bot Development, Software License, Deferred Upgrade, and Services Agreement identifying amah853 as Developer and SteelBirch6844 / ._.aahh as Client.

Relevant provisions include:

• Section 3 - Initial Package;

• Section 4 - DC$1,000 Initial Fee and payment upon acceptance;

• Section 5 - Deferred Upgrade;

• Section 15 - Cancellation;

• Section 17 - No Implied Waiver;

• Section 20 - Entire Agreement and Modification; and

• Section 24 - Digital Acceptance.

P-002 - Negotiations and Agreed Scope

Discord messages showing the parties' negotiations concerning the bot's desired functionality, package price, reduction in scope, DC$1,000 initial package, and later upgrade arrangement.

P-003 - Delivery and Digital Acceptance

Discord messages showing:

a. the Plaintiff providing the written Agreement;

b. the Plaintiff instructing the Defendant that they could copy the acceptance message and substitute their username; and

c. the Defendant transmitting:

"I, SteelBirch6844, have read and agree to the terms of this Agreement."

Spoiler: Image

View attachment 99760

P-004 - Post-Acceptance Conduct

Discord messages immediately following P-003 showing the Defendant asking whether the arrangement was a one-time payment and asking about source-code ownership.

Spoiler: Image

View attachment 99761

P-005 - Demand for Payment and Refusal

Discord messages showing the Plaintiff requesting payment of the DC$1,000 Initial Fee and the Defendant responding that they did not presently need the bot.

Spoiler: Image

View attachment 99762

P-006 - Contract Formation Dispute and Subsequent Discussion

Discord messages showing the Defendant later disputing acceptance based upon the quotation marks, acknowledging that they failed to clarify their intended timing, discussing the binding legality of the acceptance statement, and identifying hosting as a concern.

Spoiler: Image

View attachment 99763

WITNESSES

1. amah853 - Plaintiff; may testify regarding negotiations, development work, preparation and transmission of the Agreement, digital acceptance, payment demands, and subsequent communications.
2. SteelBirch6844 / ._.aahh - Defendant; party to the negotiations and Agreement.
3. riniki_ - Participant in the negotiations and subsequent wait-list discussion; may testify regarding the parties' negotiations, pricing arrangement, and the meaning and scope of the later wait-list discussion.

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 20th day of September, 2026.

Click to expand...

CreeperTD said:

This complaint must be amended in line with the proper template listed in Guide - Templates in order to comply with Rule 3.1. Please put the written statement inside a quote box, properly number your facts, and put all long quotes into quote boxes, as well.

Click to expand...

S_Starlight said:

I am representing, @.SteelBirch6844, for the defence.

Click to expand...

S_Starlight said:

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - IMPROPER EVIDENCE

In Lawsuit: Adjourned - Commonwealth of Redmont v. ImzaKRD [2025] SCR 20, the supreme court ruled that 'raw text files are not admissible as evidence unless corroborated by a secondary source' as they can be easily edited.

THEREFORE inline with precedent set by the Supreme Court, the Defence move to strike P-002 from the record for being improper

Click to expand...

S_Starlight said:

Objection

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - IMPROPER EVIDENCE

In Lawsuit: Adjourned - Commonwealth of Redmont v. ImzaKRD [2025] SCR 20, the supreme court ruled that 'raw text files are not admissible as evidence unless corroborated by a secondary source' as they can be easily edited.

THEREFORE inline with precedent set by the Supreme Court, the Defence move to strike P-002 from the record for being improper

Click to expand...

S_Starlight said:

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - Perjury

The defence did not use "..." in the picture showed below. He claimed that the defendant transmitted I, SteelBirch6844, have read and agree to the terms of this Agreement.

However the defence use " I, SteelBirch6844, have read and agree to the terms of this Agreement."

This is a huge problem as the main question in court is whether "..." makes it clear and precise that the defendant is agreeing to the contract


THEREFORE, the defendant wishes for the court to warn the plaintiff for perjury

Click to expand...

S_Starlight said:

Objection

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

The defence did not use "..." in the picture showed below. He claimed that the defendant transmitted I, SteelBirch6844, have read and agree to the terms of this Agreement.

However the defence use " I, SteelBirch6844, have read and agree to the terms of this Agreement."

This is a huge problem as the main question in court is whether "..." makes it clear and precise that the defendant is agreeing to the contract


THEREFORE, the defendant wishes for the court to warn the plaintiff for perjury

Click to expand...

CreeperTD said:

Objection OVERRULED. This a minor mistake that does not affect the substance of the Plaintiff’s filing, it does not in any way disadvantage the Defendant, and it does not harm this court’s proceedings.

The Plaintiff is asked to make minor corrections to fix the error so graciously pointed out by the Defense Counsel.

Click to expand...

S_Starlight said:

Answer to Complaint

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

amah853
Plaintiff

v.

SteelBirch6844/._.aahh
Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
The defence affirms that On or before September 14, 2026, the Plaintiff and Defendant began negotiating the development of a Discord bot for the Defendant's business.


The defence affirms that the Defendant requested a bot for a food-related business and discussed a number of desired commands and features with the Plaintiff.


The defence affirms that during the negotiations, the Defendant initially considered a larger package containing numerous features.


The defence affirms that the parties subsequently negotiated the scope and price downward.


The defence affirms that at one point, the Defendant stated that they only needed three features and referenced the lower-priced starter package.


The defence affirms that the Plaintiff and Defendant continued negotiating until the proposed arrangement became an initial limited package followed by the opportunity and contractual obligation to receive an expanded package at a later date.


The defence affirms that the Plaintiff prepared a written Bot Development, Software License, Deferred Upgrade, and Services Agreement ("Agreement").


The defence affirms that the Agreement identifies amah853 as the Developer and SteelBirch6844 / ._.aahh as the Client.


The defence affirms Under Section 3.2 of the Agreement, the Initial Package principally consists of: /order, /menu; and pricing-management functionality.


The defence affirms Section 4.1 of the Agreement requires the Defendant to pay DC$1,000 as consideration for development and licensing of the Initial Package.


The defence affirms that Section 4.2 states that the Initial Fee becomes due upon acceptance of the Agreement unless the parties expressly agree otherwise.


The defence affirms Section 3.1 provides that the Plaintiff shall provide access to the Initial Package following payment of the Initial Fee.


The defence affirms Section 4.3 further permits the Plaintiff to condition deployment, licensing, activation, or continued operation of the Initial Package upon receipt of the Initial Fee.


The defence affirms The Agreement separately establishes a DC$5,000 Upgrade Fee scheduled to become due on October 1, 2026.


The defence affirms Section 24 of the Agreement provides for digital acceptance.


The defence affirms Section 24.2 expressly states that the Defendant may accept the Agreement by transmitting the following statement, or another statement unambiguously communicating agreement:
I, SteelBirch6844, have read and agree to the terms of this Agreement.


The defence affirms On September 14, 2026, the Plaintiff transmitted the written Agreement to the Defendant.


The defence affirms Immediately thereafter, the Plaintiff told the Defendant:
you can copy my message and change the username for yours


The defence affirmsThe Defendant then transmitted:
I, SteelBirch6844, have read and agree to the terms of this Agreement.


The defence affirms that The Defendant placed quotation marks around the acceptance statement.


The defence affirms that The message nevertheless reproduced the Agreement's prescribed acceptance language, used the Defendant's own username, and was sent immediately after the Plaintiff specifically explained how the Defendant could execute the Agreement.


The defence affirms Immediately afterward, the Defendant continued discussing the Agreement.
Among other things, the Defendant asked:
This is One time right




The defence affirms The Defendant also asked whether the Plaintiff and associated business sold the source code.


The defence neither affirms nor deny At no point during that immediate exchange did the Defendant state that the acceptance message was merely an example, draft, quotation for discussion, or rejection of the Agreement.


The defence denies that The Plaintiff reasonably understood the Defendant's communication and subsequent conduct as acceptance of the Agreement.


The defence neither affirms nor denies that The Plaintiff had also already performed substantial development work relating to the bot during the parties' discussions.


The defence affirms that On September 16, 2026, after the DC$1,000 remained unpaid, the Plaintiff requested payment from the Defendant.


The defence affirms The Defendant responded:
I don't really need it rn


and subsequently:


Yet


The defence affirms The Plaintiff later again informed the Defendant that they had accepted the contract and requested payment.


The defence affirmsThe Defendant then disputed formation of the Agreement, stating:
I did not




followed by:
I put it in qoutes


The defence affirms The parties continued discussing the dispute.


The defence affirms During that discussion, the Defendant acknowledged:
It was my fault for not clarifying


The defence affirms The Defendant further stated:
We can argue the binding legality of that sentence or we can wait till the bot is needed


The defence affirms that The Defendant explained that they were primarily concerned about paying for hosting while the bot was not being used.


The defence affirms that riniki_ subsequently stated that the Defendant would be placed on a wait-list and told the Defendant to message when the bot was needed.


The defence affirms The written Agreement, however, is expressly between amah853 and SteelBirch6844 / ._.aahh.


The defence neither affirmed nor deny The Plaintiff did not expressly state in that conversation that the Defendant's existing DC$1,000 payment obligation was cancelled, waived, released, or extinguished.


The defence affirms that Section 20.3 of the Agreement provides that a later modification must be mutually agreed and that a Discord message may constitute a written modification where the changed term and both parties' assent are sufficiently clear.


The defence affirms that Section 15.2 provides that a cancellation request does not automatically extinguish obligations already incurred under the Agreement.


The defence affirms that Section 15.4 further provides that negotiating a downgrade, reduced price, settlement, alternative feature package, or other compromise does not itself constitute a waiver or release unless the parties mutually agree to the modification.


The defence affirms that Section 17 similarly provides that negotiating a lower price, delayed payment, reduced scope, downgrade, settlement, or compromise does not by itself constitute abandonment of contractual rights.


The defence affirms that The Defendant has not paid the DC$1,000 Initial Fee.



II. DEFENCES
1.Under Section 4 of the Contracts Act, a valid contract requires, among other elements, a clear offer and positive and unambiguous acceptance. The defence disputes that the communication relied upon by the plaintiff constituted such acceptance. The defendant’s position is that the quotation marks indicated that the defendant was reproducing or quoting the proposed acceptance wording and not agreeing to the contract.

2. Additionally P-003 shows the Defendant was actually communicating assent or merely reproducing the acceptance wording supplied by the Plaintiff. Hence, the defence uses the “...” mark to prevent alleged acceptance from satisfying the positive-and-unambiguous requirement.



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 26 day of September 2026

Click to expand...