Lawsuit: Adjourned ANDREASP15 v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2024] DCR 5

[Towloo]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


ANDREASP15 (Represented by Dragon Law)
Plaintiff


V


The Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant


COMPLAINT
The plaintiff complains against the defendant as follows:
On February 11th, 2024, my client made an $8,500 bid to the c718 property (Exhibit A). A couple of minutes later, dimitre977 made a bid for $9, not $9,000, $9 (Exhibit A). The auctioneer specified that the minimum increment was $500 (Exhibit B), and $9 is clearly not $500 over $8,500 and therefore was not a valid bid. However, over 24 hours later, when the auction ended (Exhibit B) and my client had rightfully won, ko531 (the auctioneer) announced that dimitre977 was the winner. He stated that dimitre977’s bid was meant to represent $9,000, but there is no proof of this. This is exactly what my client attempted to argue, although it was to no use-dimitre977 paid $9,000 in exchange for the property that my client rightfully deserved.


I. PARTIES

1. ANDREASP15 (Plaintiff)
2. The Commonwealth of Redmont (Defendant)
3. ko531 (Witness)

II. FACTS

1. My client made a valid $8,500 bid towards the c718 property auction
2. dimitre977 made a false $9 bid towards the c718 property auction
3. Under the Foundation of Contract Law, dimitre977’s bid was false, as his bid was either too low or ambiguous

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

1. My client’s bid was completely valid. It met all the requirements under the Foundation of Contract law: offer, acceptance, consideration, capacity, legality, and legal intent/format.
2. dimitre977 failed the legality section of the order previously mentioned. Under the Foundation of Contract law, the offer cannot be vague or ambiguous. dimitre977’s bid was certainly ambiguous ($9), as it could be interpreted as $9, $9,000, $9,000,000, etc.

IV. PRAYERS FOR RELIEF

1. The property of c718
2. $1,800 in legal fees

V. EVIDENCE

Exhibit A:

Exhibit B:

 

[Mask3D_WOLF]

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT[/SIZE
WRIT OF SUMMONS

The Attorney General is required to appear before the District Court in the case of ANDREASP15 v. Commonwealth of Redmont. 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.​

 

[Alexander P. Love]

Your honor, the defense has not responded in time. We move for default judgement in the plaintiff’s favor.

 

[Mask3D_WOLF]

I will accept the motion for summary judgement. The Department of Legal Affairs is hereby charged with Contempt of Court. I order the Department of Justice to punish it appropriately. Court is now in recess.

 

[Matthew100x]

Verdict

I. PLAINTIFF'S POSITION
1. Plaintiff's bid was completely valid. It met all the requirements under the Foundation of Contract law: offer, acceptance, consideration, capacity, legality, and legal intent/format.

2. Purchaser failed the legality section of the order previously mentioned. Under the Foundation of Contract law, the offer cannot be vague or ambiguous. Purchaser’s bid was certainly ambiguous ($9), as it could be interpreted as $9, $9,000, $9,000,000, etc.

II. DEFENDANT'S POSITION
1. The defendant did not appear.

III. THE COURT OPINION
1. The Commonwealth of Redmont is not the proper defendant since their involvement is for conducting the transfer. The aim of the lawsuit is to recover the property, not claim damages as a result of the transfer.

2. Purchaser's bid appears valid in that they had previously bid at ($)8k and then bid at "($)9(k)". Purchaser's previous bid shows willingness of acceptance of the deal. Plaintiff does not show evidence of Purchaser's insistence that they intended to purchase at $9,000 dollars but can clearly be seen in the discord thread #eviction - c718.

IV. DECISION
The District Court rules in favor of the Defendant.