Lawsuit: Adjourned Beray20 v. Rylint [2021] FCR 118

Chantiu

Citizen
Chantiu
Chantiu
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

CIVIL ACTION


Beray20
Plaintiff

v.

Rylint
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF


I. PARTIES
1. Beray20
2. Rylint

II. FACTS
1. The plaintiff, Beray20, was promised a C-Suite (CFO) position at the defendant, Rylint’s company to which the plaintiff was never given.
2. The plaintiff was coerced out of approximately $17,250 by the defendant to which the cash was supposed to go toward a building contractual obligation.
3. The defendant used the expenses to pay off an accumulation of debt instead of supplying it to the plaintiff for the job.
4. The plaintiff tried to inform others about the scam that the defendant was running and was met with intimidation by the defendant and their employees.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. The defendant knowingly planned and took money from my client with the knowledge that they would not give it back.
2. The defendant promised the plaintiff a position that they knew they would never give to them, in hopes that they would give them the money.
3. The defendant used other individuals to instill fear into my client in hopes that they would not pursue any further action.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. The $17,250 that was taken from the plaintiff by the defendant by mismanagement and coercion out of funds.
2. An additional $1,000 for emotional and mental distress that my client has experienced throughout this whole ordeal.

unknown.png
unknown-1.png
unknown-2.png
unknown-3.png
unknown-4.png
unknown-5.png
unknown-6.png
unknown-7.png
unknown-8.png
unknown-9.png


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

10 December 2021
 
Last edited:

xEndeavour

Owner
Owner
Chief Justice
Former President
Construction & Transport Department
RBA
xEndeavour
xEndeavour
chiefjustice
Can the Plaintiff's counsel please provide proof of their client's will for you to represent them in this case.

See 'For Lawyers' for more information here:

Additionally, can the Plaintiff also adjust their submission to reflect the correct court.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
 
Last edited:

xEndeavour

Owner
Owner
Chief Justice
Former President
Construction & Transport Department
RBA
xEndeavour
xEndeavour
chiefjustice
federal-court-png.12082


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
WRIT OF SUMMONS

The defendant is required to appear before the court in the case of the Beray20 v. Rylint. Failure to appear within 48 hours of this summons will result in a default judgment.

I'd also like to remind both parties to be aware of the Court Rules and Procedures, including the option of an in-game trial should both parties request one.

 

xEndeavour

Owner
Owner
Chief Justice
Former President
Construction & Transport Department
RBA
xEndeavour
xEndeavour
chiefjustice
Your Honor, may I post an amicus curiae brief?

What is your association with the case?

If I'm satisfied with your involvement, I'll call for it after the opening statements.
 

nnmc

Citizen
Attorney General
Attorney General's Office
RBA
nnmc
nnmc
attorneygeneral
What is your association with the case?

If I'm satisfied with your involvement, I'll call for it after the opening statements.
The plaintiff owes a debt to another citizen as a result of a court case. The Justice Department is seizing the plaintiff’s assets, however, they are currently not sufficient to pay the debt. My association with the case is that I am working with DoJ to find assets to seize from the plaintiff in order to pay the debt. Thus, I would like to speak regarding the prayers for relief of this case.

Alternatively, if you do not see fit for me to issue an amicus curiae, I ask that you consider allowing Dygyee to do so. He is the citizen to whom the debt is owed.
 

xEndeavour

Owner
Owner
Chief Justice
Former President
Construction & Transport Department
RBA
xEndeavour
xEndeavour
chiefjustice
Noted, however I won't require an amicus brief on this matter. If the Department of Justice require assets and or finances to be frozen then I'd advise them to do that outside of this case.
 

Milkcrack

Peasent
Representative
Construction & Transport Department
Donator
RBA
MilkCrack
MilkCrack
constructor
Your honour. I will be representing PerfectRylint in this case. I would like to ask for a 24hour extension due to the complexity of being sued 3x times for a relating issue.
 

xEndeavour

Owner
Owner
Chief Justice
Former President
Construction & Transport Department
RBA
xEndeavour
xEndeavour
chiefjustice
Extension granted.

The court will reconvene no later than 1400h 13 DEC 2021 AWST.
 

Milkcrack

Peasent
Representative
Construction & Transport Department
Donator
RBA
MilkCrack
MilkCrack
constructor
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

Beray20
Plaintiff

v.

PerfectedRylint (Milkcrack representing)
Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
1. Dispute:
There is no evidence of, a promise made by the company or someone with legal authority to do so and the defendant Rylint does not recall promising, Beray20 a CFO position especially not as payment for a 17.25k donation.

2. Dispute:
The evidence presented by, the plaintiff, as well as the evidence included in this answer to the complaint clearly, shows that there was no sign of coercion. The plaintiff offered to donate 17.25k "bail-out". No force or thread was made by the defendant and therefore that allegation is frivolous.

3. Dispute
The plaintiff agreed to "bailout" the company by donating 17.25k to pay off debt as made clear by the screenshots provided by the plaintiff and on this answer to the complaint. It was not an expense but a donation.

4. Dispute
The claim that the defendant was supposedly running a scam is frivolous and slanderous. The defendant told the plaintiff that, claiming his company was scamming people was slanderous and if he continued to maliciously defame the company he would be forced to take legal action.


II. DEFENCES
Beray20 donated the money to the company, as a "Bail-out" there was no expectation to receive said money back. It's not possible to retract a donation if you are short on cash. The following evidence clearly shows that the money is given as a donation and was intended to pay off debts. There was no contract made to supply materials to Beray20 as a private contractor.

unknown.png
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 13 day of December 2021
 

xEndeavour

Owner
Owner
Chief Justice
Former President
Construction & Transport Department
RBA
xEndeavour
xEndeavour
chiefjustice
Thank you, the Plaintiff may now provide its opening statement.

Please submit this statement within 48 hours.
 

Chantiu

Citizen
Chantiu
Chantiu
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

OPENING STATEMENT

1. The defendant clearly asked my client for the money to pay off an accumulation of debt as is proven by the evidence below. My client offered to split it for the contract that they did for the defendant's company. Additionally, the defendant specifically asked for 70% of my client's earnings.
2. The defendant used their constituent named "Imagine" to entice my client by offering them a C-Suite (CFO) position at the company with no intentions of hiring them. The defendant then refutes this claim after they receive the monetary payment from my client.
3. The defendant banned and tried to intimidate my client after they called out the inaccuracies of their actions and threatened to take legal action.

With all of the facts listed above, I believe that my client is entitled to compensation not only for the hard work but for the mental anguish and mind games that they experienced at the hand defendant and their business partners. These acts are inexcusable and show that the defendant lacks decorum and the ability to effectively run a business. My client was clearly misled and taken advantage of.

unknown-16.png

unknown-13.png
unknown-19.png

unknown-14.png
unknown-13.png

unknown-8.png
unknown-9.png
unknown-10.png
unknown-15.png
 

xEndeavour

Owner
Owner
Chief Justice
Former President
Construction & Transport Department
RBA
xEndeavour
xEndeavour
chiefjustice
Thank you, the Defence may now provide its opening statement.

Please submit this statement within 48 hours.
 

Milkcrack

Peasent
Representative
Construction & Transport Department
Donator
RBA
MilkCrack
MilkCrack
constructor
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Opening Statement
The Plaintiff started their letter of complaint by making the claim that Beray20 was promised a position at Credit Resource as CFO. Now they have expanded that claim by implying that there was a quid pro quo where Beray20 would donate money in return for the CFO position. This claim is irrational and even their own evidence directly contradicts this claim.

Plaintiff tries to prove this claim by presenting a screenshot which clearly shows the following;
"Are u sure the others have agreed tho? Rylint clearly wasn't in on the idea"
An employee who does not have the authority to promote people to CFO said the following;
"He did not think about it enough he can't predict people well"

This clearly shows that on 24/11/2021 the day of the donation, Beray20 knew that Rylint(the owner of the company), did not want to promote him to the position of CFO. There was no mention of a quid pro quo, that would promote him to CFO. The only hint at the donation was mentioned by Beray20 which clearly shows that even if Beray20 thought that imagine had the power to promote him, that this only happened after the donation. Making it clear that this whole, ordeal is non-sensical and only an attempt to slander the company and the owner.

The second claim the plaintiff makes is that Beray20 did not donate the 17k however it was a building contract. However, there is no evidence of there ever being a contract. In fact, the plaintiff himself has said on a multitude of occasions the 17k was a donation.

"I mean, if you think I'm not loyal.... i just gave you a 17k bailout"

"Think of it like a donation to get you guys out of trouble"

"I'm not sure if Rylint spoke to u or not... but I think i deserve a seat at the company board after my 17k donation"

The Plaintiff story is clearly foundationless, they are claiming that the 17k was both a donation to bribe his way to the position of CFO and it was also a contractual agreement. The plaintiff is clearly just trying to scramble for cash and found that suing, the company that wouldn't promote you would be the easiest solution for paying your debt which you still owe due to other failed commitments.
 

xEndeavour

Owner
Owner
Chief Justice
Former President
Construction & Transport Department
RBA
xEndeavour
xEndeavour
chiefjustice
Can the plaintiff please provide the following:
1. Evidence to substantiate the claim that the defendant's actions were pre-meditated, as described in claim for relief 1.
2. Evidence that the defendant promised the plaintiff (Rylint) a position at the firm.
3. Evidence to substantiate the claim that the plaintiff used individuals to instil fear. (if you require a witness to testify please nominate your witnesses below).

Can the defendant please provide the following:
1. The remuneration policy for what an employee would usually receive in compensation for any work processed through the ticketing system at the company.

Witnesses
If you would like to call on any witnesses, please make your nominations known to the court.
 
Last edited:

Be-ray

Citizen
Beray20
Beray20
1. There was no set amount of compensation... it was abt 20% of total order value where material cost is borne by company
 

xEndeavour

Owner
Owner
Chief Justice
Former President
Construction & Transport Department
RBA
xEndeavour
xEndeavour
chiefjustice
The Plaintiff has 24 hours to respond to the following otherwise the case will be decided based on the facts known to the court:

Can the plaintiff please provide the following:
1. Evidence to substantiate the claim that the defendant's actions were pre-meditated, as described in claim for relief 1.
2. Evidence that the defendant promised the plaintiff (Rylint) a position at the firm.
3. Evidence to substantiate the claim that the plaintiff used individuals to instil fear. (if you require a witness to testify please nominate your witnesses below).

Witnesses
If you would like to call on any witnesses, please make your nominations known to the court.
 

Chantiu

Citizen
Chantiu
Chantiu
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

1. As we have seen the defendant has a substantial amount of pending lawsuits against them for their less-than-perfect business practices. The defendant willingly accepted money from my client. The funds were not donated, which is what the defense is trying to claim. They were provided in exchange for a service to which the defendant wanted to use to pay off a debt. The defendant was already in debt. This indicates the defendant has the inability to sufficiently handle anything of monetary value, thus they had did not have any intentions in paying back the money that my client lent. You cannot simply rob peter to pay paul.

8.png

2. Although the defendant did not promise the position of employment themselves, a business partner of the defendant offered the position to my client, who is known as "imagine". Being that the defendant is the owner of the company, they should be held liable for the actions and business practices of their employees. Whether it be something as minor as managing a build or as large as offering someone else a executive position. All of this could have been avoided if the defendant had a better grasp on their employees. Since they're in charge of the business, they are responsible for everything that happens within the business.

unknown-14.png

3. The defendant clearly threatened my client in the evidence provided. The defendant stated that if the plaintiff pursued a legal case against them, then they will be subsequently "harmed". It is obvious that the defendant tried to use intimidation in order to prevent my client from pressing charges. Also, the defendant did not deny their involvement in the situation.

1.png
 

xEndeavour

Owner
Owner
Chief Justice
Former President
Construction & Transport Department
RBA
xEndeavour
xEndeavour
chiefjustice
Noting that neither party has called upon any witnesses, if there are no objections we will move on to closing statements starting with the Plaintiff.

Can I ask that the Defence please review the Plaintiff's response to my question on reply #18 of this thread to confirm that it is correct. I would also implore the Defence to respond to the case in a timely manner when requested by the Court.

The Court will reconvene in no later than 48 hours.
 

xEndeavour

Owner
Owner
Chief Justice
Former President
Construction & Transport Department
RBA
xEndeavour
xEndeavour
chiefjustice
The Plaintiff has failed to provide a closing statement without a reasonable cause, the Defence has 96 Hours to provide a closing statement.

Can the defence also please confirm whether reply #18 is correct.

nb: 2 days extension was provided to account for the Christmas period
 

Milkcrack

Peasent
Representative
Construction & Transport Department
Donator
RBA
MilkCrack
MilkCrack
constructor
Can I get 36 hours extension (The Netherlands has long Christmas, and I have to visit family)?
 

Milkcrack

Peasent
Representative
Construction & Transport Department
Donator
RBA
MilkCrack
MilkCrack
constructor
Closing Statements

The remuneration policy for Credit-Resource works the following; a contract is made between Credit-Resource and the client. Then Credit-Resource and its employees will make sure the contract is fulfilled. After that Credit-Resource is paid. Credit-Resource will, deduct the material costs of construction and then pay the employees depending on how much work they do. This shows that there is no way for the plaintiff, to reasonably believe there were any talks of a contract as that is not the regular way.

The plaintiff tries to substantiate that "Rylints actions were premeditated" in regards to a job offer and a donation by saying that anyone who owes the debt is not capable of handling anything of monetary value. Which is in no way shape or form true or relevant evidence. The evidence itself is prejudicial and inadmissible, as character evidence should not be admissible in a civil trial to prove conduct.

Secondly, as for the job offer. There is no legal standing for, not fulfilling a potential job offer that is not a legally binding contract. Besides, the offer of CFO was not made by Rylint it was made by an unauthorized employee. Even if there was legal standing to sue the person who made the offer, or the company he works for. Rylint can't be personally liable for the behaviour of employees inside the company unless he pushed them to, commit said behaviour which is clearly not the case here.

Thirdly, as to the alledges "intimidation". The conversation screenshotted is not evidence of intimidation. No threads were made implied or otherwise. None of the claims, Rylint made were outside of the scope of the legal remedies at his disposal.

So I would like to ask the judge to rule in favour of Defendant because the plaintiff has failed to prove a single allegation. Their logic was inconsistent at best and they failed to provide admissible or relevant evidence that" Rylint actions were pre-meditated" or that he attempted to intimidate him.
 

xEndeavour

Owner
Owner
Chief Justice
Former President
Construction & Transport Department
RBA
xEndeavour
xEndeavour
chiefjustice

Verdict

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
VERDICT

Beray20 v. Rylint [2021] FCR 118

I. PLAINTIFF'S POSITION
1. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant coerced the Defendant out of $17,250 in what was a premeditated scam to pay the Defendant's debts.
2. The Plaintiff claims that they were purposely mislead when promised a c-suite position at the Defendant's company, Credit Resource.
3. The Plaintiff was subject to duress.
4. The Plaintiff claims that the CEO is vicariously liable for the actions of their employees in offering the plaintiff a promotion.
5. The Plaintiff claims the aforementioned $17,250 in damages and $1000 in emotional damages.

II. DEFENDANTS POSITION
1. The Defendant claims that the offer of a promotion was not made by an authorised individual.
2. The Defendant claims that the $17,500 payment was a donation.
3. The Defendant claims that the allegation of duress is frivolous.
4. The Defendant claims that Credit Resource was not party to the building contract.

III. THE COURT OPINION
1. Overview

It is the opinion of the court that this is a complex dispute concerning contract law.

2. Contract Formation
The legal test for contract formation is the combination of the following legal variables:
Offer;
Acceptance;
Consideration;
Capacity;
Legality;
Legal intent; and
Format

Application of the Legal Test for Contract Formation
Application of the legal test in relation to the transfer of $17,500 in funds:
Parties: Beray20 (offeror), Rylint (offeree)

Offer: The offeror makes an offer to share the profits of a building contract (80% to the offeree and 20% to the offeror).

Note: Based on the known facts of the case, the offeree is not party to the building contract. It is the court's opinion that the offeror was under the false pretence that they were an agent of the organisation in forming contract. Evidence shows that appropriate channels existed and this contract was initially formed outside of these channels, without the organisation's knowledge.

The offeree makes a counter-offer to the offeror whereby the materials will be paid for by the company and 70% of the share ($17,500) is immediately transferred to the offeree. The terms of the contract are otherwise vague.

Acceptance: The offeror agrees to the transaction of $17,500 and transfers the funds.

Consideration: The offeror provides consideration in the form of the transferred funds. However, the offeree does not provide any form of consideration. (i.e. there is no expectation that the offeree is to provide any form of promise or an act or omission).

Remarks: A legally-binding contract cannot be formed and enforced. The funds would be best described as a gift due to the one-sided consideration. This notion was later reinforced by the Plaintiff in the tabled evidence.

3. Vicarious Liability
There is little legal argument and or law concerning vicarious liability - an employer's legal responsibility for their employees actions. The crux of the matter, however, is that the CEO had denied the prospect of a promotion to the Plaintiff. The business partner, whose position is unknown to the court, was clearly aware of this employment rejection and still chose to offer the plaintiff a promotion.

The Plaintiff has not provided any further evidence to suggest that the unknown business partner was authorised to make this promotion. The burden of proof lies on the Plaintiff to prove that this individual had authority to promote the Plaintiff. I find it improbable that the Chief Executive Officer would be overridden in this instance.

4. Premeditation
The provided evidence does not support the claim of premeditation.

5. Duress
The provided evidence does not support the claim of duress.

6. Damages
No actual loss was proven by the Plaintiff, therefore there is no reasonable claim to further damages.

IV. DECISION
The Federal Court holds the opinion that this was a poorly evidenced case against the Defendant. The evidence provided was, in parts, of more use to the defence than it was to the Plaintiff.

This case appeared to be a form of retribution for what I would consider a failed bribe.

The Federal Court hereby rules in favour of the Defendant.

The Federal Court orders the Plaintiff to pay the Defendant $1000 in support of legal costs.

 
Last edited:
Top