Lawsuit: Adjourned Boomsides and Pepecuu v. Lucaa7377 [2025] FCR 10

[Boomsides]

Case Filing

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION

I. PARTIES​

Boomsides (Plaintiff 1) & Pepecuu (Plaintiff 2)
Plaintiffs

v.

Lucaa7377
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiffs complain against the Defendant as follows:

WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF’S

The Plaintiffs, Boomsides and Pepecuu, respectfully submit the following statement: On January 17, 2025, the Plaintiffs participated in an auction for a property hosted by the Defendant, lucaa7377, which started at $12,000. In order to secure the property, Plaintiff 1 paused their operations to set aside the necessary funds, as they could not risk not having enough money if they won. Despite their active participation with bids, the Defendant canceled the auction while it was ongoing and sold the property privately to Plura72 for $23,000, in clear violation of auction rules and the 24-hour bid window. This caused financial harm to the Plaintiffs as their resources were wasted, and their operations were disrupted. Furthermore, the Defendant mocked the Plaintiffs afterward, dismissively stating, among other smug and callous remarks, “who cares enough?”, demonstrating a disregard for the law and the harm caused. The Defendant’s actions were unlawful and intentional, resulting in both financial and emotional damage to the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs request the Court consider these facts and award appropriate relief for the harm caused.

II. FACTS​

1. On January 17, 2025, the Defendant, lucaa7377, initiated an auction for a property located 824 blocks from spawn, with a starting price of $12,000. The auction was governed by the Real Estate Guidelines.
2. Plaintiff 1 participated in the auction, placing bids in good faith. Plaintiff 1 initially bid $12,000, followed by a bid of $14,000. Plaintiff 2 also expressed interest in the auction.
3. After a few bids, Plura72 asked the Defendant if he would sell the property for a direct price of $23,000, bypassing the bidding process. The Defendant then took such an offer.
4. Despite the auction still being active, the Defendant prematurely canceled the auction and engaged in a private sale with Plura72. The property was sold for $23,000, and this occurred while bids were still in progress.
5. Plaintiff 1 was forced to pause all operations to reserve the necessary funds in case they were the winning bidder. This was a necessary precaution to ensure they had enough funds if the auction reached their bid, disrupting their business activities.
6. The Defendant’s actions directly violated the Real Estate Guidelines, which prohibit canceling ongoing auctions and selling properties outside of the auction framework. The Defendant also disregarded the established process for conducting and concluding auctions.
7. The Defendant admitted to this breach of auction protocol in a conversation, where they casually mentioned selling the property outside of the auction and stated, “Who cares enough?”
8. The Defendant then was questioned on whether or not the property was still on auction, and lied about still having it within their possession, and even encouraged further bids quoted as saying “Yeah but people can still bid”.
9. The Defendant even further edits the post, so as to “invalidate” the auction as a means to avoid legal retribution.
10. The Defendant even further shows absolute contempt for his actions cited as saying “lets just let bygones be bygones and forget about my mistake th[at] couldnt have been prevented in any other way”
11. As there are an incredible amount of instances, I will now create a list of every mocking or facetious statement, or outright lies made by the defendant.
    1. I can just make the auction invalid - Ooooo look it happened to be edited - Coz the auction isn’t legal I guess that means its invalid
    2. I didnt sell it yet - Okay - so uhhh - the payment may have been done
    3. Oh well - who cares enough
    4. Brudda - oh well
    5. Yeah unfortunately not enough bids were made - so I had to cancell it
    6. Only HALF fault tho
    7. Coz in that case - this is my educated lawyer - so its not ma fauly
    8. Yeah but people can still bid
    9. What if I happened to have it now
    10. Says who? (In response to an accusation about taking an illegal bribe) - Oh yeah - true
    11. I was feeling threatened so I had to end the auction - I was defending myself
    12. Waita minute has this auction been invalid this entire time? - the last time i checked an edited auction post is invalid - all bids are invalid tho - no entiendo
    13. (in response for as to why he gave Plura72 his land) it was because he is my legal advisor and I gave him a gift - just a good spirited gift
    14. Yeah but a completely legal crime

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF​

The Defendant's actions breached the following provisions:

1. Auction Terms (Breach of Contract):
   • Under the Real Estate Guidelines and as supported by Section 14(1) of the Contracts Act, auctions must run to completion unless specific criteria are met. The Defendant unlawfully canceled the auction mid-process, violating the Duty of Good Faith and Fair Dealing. This improper termination constitutes a material breach under Section 12(1)(a) of the Act, allowing Plaintiffs to seek appropriate remedies.
2. Unauthorized Sale (Breach of Contract):
   • The Real Estate Guidelines prohibit the direct sale of properties during an ongoing auction unless explicitly stated in the auction's terms. The Defendant’s sale of the property to Plura72 for $23,000 violated the express terms of the auction as outlined in Section 5(1) of the Act and undermined the fairness required by Section 14(1). This deliberate non-performance constitutes a breach under Section 7(1).
3. Failure to Follow Legal Auction Procedures (Misrepresentation):
   • The Defendant edited the post and deviated from standard auction procedures. He then lied about having the property still, and even encouraged more bids. This constitutes a false representation of adherence to legal processes, inducing Plaintiffs to participate under false pretenses. Such conduct meets the definition of misrepresentation under Section 8(1) of the Act, entitling Plaintiffs to remedies such as rescission or damages under Section 8(1)(a).
4. Damages Induced (Breach of Good Faith and Fair Dealing):
   • The Defendant mocked and insulted the Plaintiffs, providing fabricated excuses for canceling the auction. This behavior reflects a clear violation of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing as stated in Section 14(2) of the Act. The Plaintiffs not only lost a property they were interested in but also suffered emotional distress and reputational harm due to the Defendant's actions.
5. Defendant’s Statements (Intent and Breach):
   • Statements such as “Who cares enough” demonstrate the Defendant’s blatant disregard for the intent to fulfill obligations required under Section 4(2)(d) of the Act. This reflects a failure to act with honesty, integrity, and fairness as outlined in Section 14(1).

The Defendant’s actions collectively demonstrate a disregard for contractual obligations, auction integrity, and the legal standards established under the Contracts Act.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF​

The Plaintiffs seek the following from the Defendant:

1. Compensatory and Consequential Damages:
   • $15,000 per Plaintiff to compensate for both financial losses and emotional distress resulting from the Defendant’s wrongful cancellation of the auction and unauthorized sale.
   • The Plaintiffs were forced to pause their operations to participate in the auction, ensuring they had enough money to meet the bid amounts. This pause resulted in a loss of valuable time and potential revenue.
2. Punitive Damages:
   • $25,000 to punish the Defendant for the egregious nature of their conduct and to deter similar future actions. The Defendant acted in callous disregard for the Plaintiffs’ rights and the established rules of the auction. Despite knowing that their actions violated the Real Estate Guidelines, the Defendant proceeded to cancel the auction and sell the property directly to Plura72 without any justification, knowing full well that this was a breach of the law.
   • The Defendant’s attitude, as expressed during the incident, was unapologetic and defiant, even saying, “Who cares enough?” This statement demonstrates a clear intent to disregard the auction rules and treat the established guidelines as inconsequential. Such conduct not only undermines the integrity of the auction process but also indicates an utter lack of regard for the fair treatment of others.
   • These punitive damages are necessary to send a strong message that such callous and unlawful behavior will not be tolerated and that the Defendant must be held accountable for their actions.
3. Legal Fees:
   • $16,500 to reimburse the Plaintiffs for the legal costs incurred in pursuing this lawsuit, ensuring they are not financially burdened by the need to take legal action.
4. Injunctive Relief:
   • A court order requiring the Defendant to comply with the Real Estate Guidelines in all future auctions to prevent similar breaches and protect the rights of all participants.

Spoiler: P-001

Spoiler: P-002

Spoiler: P-003

Spoiler: P-004

Spoiler: P-005

Spoiler: P-006

Spoiler: P-007

Spoiler: P-008

Spoiler: P-009

Spoiler: P-010

Witnesses -
Pepecuu
Boomsides
Real estate c344 chat

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 22nd day of January 2025

Boomsides
Representative of the Plaintiffs, Boomsides and Pepecuu
Proof of Representation -

 

[xtub12345]

Do you mean the player currently with the in-game name,
lucaaasserole, who's discord name is Lucaa7377?

 

[Babysoga4real]

Do you mean the player currently with the in-game name,
lucaaasserole, who's discord name is Lucaa7377?

Your Honor I just read this and can tell you this is right Lucaaasserole is lucaa7377.

 

[Boomsides]

Do you mean the player currently with the in-game name,
lucaaasserole, who's discord name is Lucaa7377?

Yes your honor, I confirm.

 

[Boomsides]

In order to preserve our right to a speedy trial, we request summons be issued as soon as possible.

 

[xtub12345]

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

@lucaaaaMC is required to appear before the Federal Court in the case of Boomsides and Pepecuu v. Lucaa7377. 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.​

 

[zLost]

• Despite knowing that their actions violated the Real Estate Guidelines, the Defendant proceeded to cancel the auction and sell the property directly to Plura72 without any justification, knowing full well that this was a breach of the law.

Objection

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

In the Plaintiff's evidence P-002, we clearly see that the Defendant was unsure if it was against the rules. Therefore, this statement is inherently false, since the Defendant was not aware it was against the rules, and was fed misinformation by Plura76, that it is in fact compliant with the rules.

However, your honor, the Defense would like to note that this is not an admission that the Plaintiff's actions were against the guidelines.

Spoiler: PROOF OF REPRESENTATION

 

[zLost]

Answer to Complaint

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

Boomsides (Plaintiff 1) & Pepecuu (Plaintiff 2)
Plaintiff

v.

Lucaa7377
Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
1. The Defence affirms Fact 1.
2. The Defence semi-affirms Fact 2.
3. The Defence semi-affirms Fact 3.
4. The Defence semi-affirms Fact 4.
5. The Defence denies Fact 5.
6. The Defence semi-affirms Fact 6.
7. The Defence denies Fact 7.
8. The Defence denies Fact 8.
9. The Defence semi-affirms Fact 9.
10. The Defence denies Fact 10.
11. The Defence semi-affirms Fact 11.

II. DEFENCES
1. The Defence alleges that both Plaintiffs are not eligible for compensatory damages. Not only is there 0 evidence regarding these so-called operations that were paused, the entire situation took place over 17 minutes, which does not justify $15,000 in compensatory damages per plaintiff. Upon further research, Plaintiff 1 owns one business named 5BigBooms (Exhibit A), which mainly sells fireworks (as inferred from the name, and in posts in #advertise). Therefore, it's safe to assume that the Plaintiff makes their money mainly from selling fireworks. Getting fireworks is a task that requires you to be in the game, and as we can see in P-006, the Plaintiff states that they are in class, which means that they are unable to be in-game and their use of Discord is heavily impaired. It should be clear that it's almost impossible to pause any meaningful operations, especially in your company which operates mainly in-game, under these conditions.
2. According to Prayer for Relief 1, Plaintiff 2 also had to pause their operations in order to ensure they had funds to bid on the auction. However, this is almost impossible as Plaintiff 2 was (most) likely not online during those 17 minutes and didn't participate in the channel until roughly 50 minutes after. Plaintiff 2 had zero discord and in-game engagement when the auction was ongoing (Exhibit B), and as we can see from their messages, they implied that they were going to sleep by stating "gn DC, cyall later" (Exhibit B).
3. Regarding Punitive Damages, we can see that the Defendant had remorse for their actions and even attempted to de-escalate the situation from their messages in P-010 and Exhibit C. Not only that, the only reason why the Defendant did this in the first place was because they were of the belief it was fully legal, due to misinformation given by Plura76. From their messages in P-008, we see that the Defendant would have continued the auction had they known that it was (allegedly) illegal and hadn't completed the transaction.
4. #real-estate guidelines state:

The DOC/DCT reserves the right to terminate an auction at anytime for whatever reason.

Therefore, this is one of the terms of the contract, allowing the contract to be terminated if the DOC/DCT wish to do so. This is exactly what happened, as the DOC allowed the auction to be cancelled and punished the Defendant with a warning to not sell items that are being auctioned (Exhibit D). Therefore, the auction was cancelled in a legal manner, according to the terms set out by the contract that the bidder and the auctioneer agree to when bidding/auctioning something.

Note: My discord images are in the GMT+4 timezone.

Spoiler: EXHIBIT A

Spoiler: EXHIBIT B

Spoiler: EXHIBIT C

Spoiler: EXHIBIT D

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 31st day of February 2024.

 

[zLost]

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO DISMISS

The defence moves that Prayer for Relief 4 in this case be dismissed, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:

1. The Legal Damages Act (link), under "Legal Fees" states:
(3) Diminution of award:
(a) Lawyers are required to disclose their fee structure along with their proof of representation to the court. If they are representing a... additional legal fees.

The Plaintiff has not disclosed their fee structure. Therefore, there is no legal basis for the legal fees requested by the Plaintiff.

 

[Boomsides]

Answer to Complaint

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

Boomsides (Plaintiff 1) & Pepecuu (Plaintiff 2)
Plaintiff

v.

Lucaa7377
Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
1. The Defence affirms Fact 1.
2. The Defence semi-affirms Fact 2.
3. The Defence semi-affirms Fact 3.
4. The Defence semi-affirms Fact 4.
5. The Defence denies Fact 5.
6. The Defence semi-affirms Fact 6.
7. The Defence denies Fact 7.
8. The Defence denies Fact 8.
9. The Defence semi-affirms Fact 9.
10. The Defence denies Fact 10.
11. The Defence semi-affirms Fact 11.

II. DEFENCES
1. The Defence alleges that both Plaintiffs are not eligible for compensatory damages. Not only is there 0 evidence regarding these so-called operations that were paused, the entire situation took place over 17 minutes, which does not justify $15,000 in compensatory damages per plaintiff. Upon further research, Plaintiff 1 owns one business named 5BigBooms (Exhibit A), which mainly sells fireworks (as inferred from the name, and in posts in #advertise). Therefore, it's safe to assume that the Plaintiff makes their money mainly from selling fireworks. Getting fireworks is a task that requires you to be in the game, and as we can see in P-006, the Plaintiff states that they are in class, which means that they are unable to be in-game and their use of Discord is heavily impaired. It should be clear that it's almost impossible to pause any meaningful operations, especially in your company which operates mainly in-game, under these conditions.
2. According to Prayer for Relief 1, Plaintiff 2 also had to pause their operations in order to ensure they had funds to bid on the auction. However, this is almost impossible as Plaintiff 2 was (most) likely not online during those 17 minutes and didn't participate in the channel until roughly 50 minutes after. Plaintiff 2 had zero discord and in-game engagement when the auction was ongoing (Exhibit B), and as we can see from their messages, they implied that they were going to sleep by stating "gn DC, cyall later" (Exhibit B).
3. Regarding Punitive Damages, we can see that the Defendant had remorse for their actions and even attempted to de-escalate the situation from their messages in P-010 and Exhibit C. Not only that, the only reason why the Defendant did this in the first place was because they were of the belief it was fully legal, due to misinformation given by Plura76. From their messages in P-008, we see that the Defendant would have continued the auction had they known that it was (allegedly) illegal and hadn't completed the transaction.
4. #real-estate guidelines state:

The DOC/DCT reserves the right to terminate an auction at anytime for whatever reason.

Therefore, this is one of the terms of the contract, allowing the contract to be terminated if the DOC/DCT wish to do so. This is exactly what happened, as the DOC allowed the auction to be cancelled and punished the Defendant with a warning to not sell items that are being auctioned (Exhibit D). Therefore, the auction was cancelled in a legal manner, according to the terms set out by the contract that the bidder and the auctioneer agree to when bidding/auctioning something.

Note: My discord images are in the GMT+4 timezone.

Spoiler: EXHIBIT A

View attachment 51377

Spoiler: EXHIBIT B

View attachment 51378View attachment 51379

Spoiler: EXHIBIT C

View attachment 51380View attachment 51381View attachment 51382View attachment 51383View attachment 51384

Spoiler: EXHIBIT D

View attachment 51385View attachment 51386

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 31st day of February 2024.

Objection

Breach of Procedure – Premature Answer to Complaint
Your Honor,
The Defendant’s Answer to Complaint has been filed prematurely, as discovery has not even taken place yet. I move that this be struck, and to get back to procedure by beginning discovery.

 

[Boomsides]

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO DISMISS

The defence moves that Prayer for Relief 4 in this case be dismissed, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:

1. The Legal Damages Act (link), under "Legal Fees" states:
(3) Diminution of award:
(a) Lawyers are required to disclose their fee structure along with their proof of representation to the court. If they are representing a... additional legal fees.

The Plaintiff has not disclosed their fee structure. Therefore, there is no legal basis for the legal fees requested by the Plaintiff.

I request permission to respond.

 

[Boomsides]

Objection

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

In the Plaintiff's evidence P-002, we clearly see that the Defendant was unsure if it was against the rules. Therefore, this statement is inherently false, since the Defendant was not aware it was against the rules, and was fed misinformation by Plura76, that it is in fact compliant with the rules.

However, your honor, the Defense would like to note that this is not an admission that the Plaintiff's actions were against the guidelines.

Spoiler: PROOF OF REPRESENTATION

View attachment 51376

Response to Defendant’s Objection – Alleged Perjury

Your Honor,

The Defendant’s objection on the grounds of perjury is without merit and should be dismissed.

Intentional Disregard for the Rules – The Defendant’s actions reflect intentional negligence rather than confusion. By proceeding with the auction cancellation and directly selling the property to Plura72, the Defendant clearly ignored the established auction guidelines. Their failure to read or understand the rules, combined with trusting an unqualified source, demonstrates a reckless disregard for the law. This wasn’t an accident; it was a willful choice to bypass proper procedure.
Negligence is Still Accountability – While the Defendant may argue they were misinformed, trusting an unreliable source and not verifying the information shows negligence. The law doesn’t excuse such behavior simply because they were told something that wasn’t true. The Defendant intentionally disregarded their responsibility to follow the rules, and that choice was reckless in itself.
No Perjury Was Committed – Perjury requires knowingly lying under oath. My statement is not false; it accurately reflects the Defendant’s actions and their disregard for the established guidelines. Ignoring or misreading the rules does not absolve them of the consequences of their actions

In light of this, I request the court overrule this objection and proceed with the case.

 

[Boomsides]

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

@lucaaaaMC is required to appear before the Federal Court in the case of Boomsides and Pepecuu v. Lucaa7377. 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.​

I respectfully request the presiding judge answer the items, objections, etc. asked of them, in order to uphold the right to a speedy trial.

 

[ColonelKai]

I will be taking over this case as the previous Judicial Officer has now left office.

Objection

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

In the Plaintiff's evidence P-002, we clearly see that the Defendant was unsure if it was against the rules. Therefore, this statement is inherently false, since the Defendant was not aware it was against the rules, and was fed misinformation by Plura76, that it is in fact compliant with the rules.

However, your honor, the Defense would like to note that this is not an admission that the Plaintiff's actions were against the guidelines.

Spoiler: PROOF OF REPRESENTATION

View attachment 51376

This objection is hereby overruled. Perjury very explicitly requires a proof of the fact that the accused has made the statements while knowing the statement was false. As the defendant has failed to provide such an evidence, the objection does not meet the criteria of the rule.

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO DISMISS

The defence moves that Prayer for Relief 4 in this case be dismissed, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:

1. The Legal Damages Act (link), under "Legal Fees" states:
(3) Diminution of award:
(a) Lawyers are required to disclose their fee structure along with their proof of representation to the court. If they are representing a... additional legal fees.

The Plaintiff has not disclosed their fee structure. Therefore, there is no legal basis for the legal fees requested by the Plaintiff.

This motion is hereby dismissed. The motion fails to cite a rule under which the prayer should be dismissed.

Objection

Breach of Procedure – Premature Answer to Complaint
Your Honor,
The Defendant’s Answer to Complaint has been filed prematurely, as discovery has not even taken place yet. I move that this be struck, and to get back to procedure by beginning discovery.

This objection is overruled as the answer was entered into court the same day (and if the timestamps on forums do not deceive me,) hours before the rule change. As the Answer to Complaint has already been entered, we will simply go into the discovery phase.

This case hereby goes into the discovery phase to last no more than 72 hours.

 

[zLost]

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO DISMISS

The defence moves that Prayer for Relief 4 in this case be dismissed, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:

1. Rule 5.5 of Court Rules & Procedure (link) states:
A Motion to Dismiss may be filed for failure to state a claim for relief, or against an claim for relief that has insufficient evidence to support the civil or criminal charge.

2. The Legal Damages Act (link), under "Legal Fees" states:
(3) Diminution of award:
(a) Lawyers are required to disclose their fee structure along with their proof of representation to the court. If they are representing a... additional legal fees.

The Plaintiff has not disclosed their fee structure. Therefore, there is no legal basis for the legal fees requested by the Plaintiff, and there is insufficient evidence regarding it.

 

[zLost]

This objection is hereby overruled. Perjury very explicitly requires a proof of the fact that the accused has made the statements while knowing the statement was false. As the defendant has failed to provide such an evidence, the objection does not meet the criteria of the rule.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO RECONSIDER

The Defence asks to reconsider this decision, as it's very clear that the Plaintiff was aware that the Defendant themselves stated that they weren't sure that it was against the rules, since they themselves submitted this evidence to the court, and from Fact 11, we can see that Plaintiff 1 extensively analyzed the evidence to find those statements. Therefore, there is no excuse for them to lie about such matters under oath.

 

[ColonelKai]

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO DISMISS

The defence moves that Prayer for Relief 4 in this case be dismissed, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:

1. Rule 5.5 of Court Rules & Procedure (link) states:
A Motion to Dismiss may be filed for failure to state a claim for relief, or against an claim for relief that has insufficient evidence to support the civil or criminal charge.

2. The Legal Damages Act (link), under "Legal Fees" states:
(3) Diminution of award:
(a) Lawyers are required to disclose their fee structure along with their proof of representation to the court. If they are representing a... additional legal fees.

The Plaintiff has not disclosed their fee structure. Therefore, there is no legal basis for the legal fees requested by the Plaintiff, and there is insufficient evidence regarding it.

I believe the defendant here meant to cite Relief 3, not 4. This motion to dismiss is therefore denied but as it is a minor mistake, the court will allow a resubmission.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO RECONSIDER

The Defence asks to reconsider this decision, as it's very clear that the Plaintiff was aware that the Defendant themselves stated that they weren't sure that it was against the rules, since they themselves submitted this evidence to the court, and from Fact 11, we can see that Plaintiff 1 extensively analyzed the evidence to find those statements. Therefore, there is no excuse for them to lie about such matters under oath.

For the charge of perjury, there are two factors the court must consider; factuality and knowledge. To satisfy perjury, a statement given to the court must be incorrect, and the submitter must be aware of the fact.

Factuality: It can be reasonably assumed from the evidence submitted to the court that there was no clear-cut certainty to the intent and knowledge of the defendant. Therefore, it is factually wrong to claim a certainty which does not exist.

Knowledge: As the defence has stated within their motion to reconsider, the plaintiff's legal counsel seems to have thoroughly inspected the evidence, as apparent from their detailed assessment of their contents. Therefore, it can be, beyond a reasonable doubt, believed that a practicing lawyer licensed by the commonwealth would have noticed such facts, or rather, the inaccuracies within the stated facts.

Therefore, this motion is hereby granted.

As the incorrectness of the statement has not threatened the integrity of the case, or have caused a large consequence, and was mostly for the purposes of building a narrative, the court finds it that a fine of $5,000 (Five-Thousand-Redmont-Dollars) is appropriate. The court thereby instructs the Department of Homeland Security to issue the fines as appropriate.

The discovery period is still ongoing.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

I believe the defendant here meant to cite Relief 3, not 4. This motion to dismiss is therefore denied but as it is a minor mistake, the court will allow a resubmission.


For the charge of perjury, there are two factors the court must consider; factuality and knowledge. To satisfy perjury, a statement given to the court must be incorrect, and the submitter must be aware of the fact.

Factuality: It can be reasonably assumed from the evidence submitted to the court that there was no clear-cut certainty to the intent and knowledge of the defendant. Therefore, it is factually wrong to claim a certainty which does not exist.

Knowledge: As the defence has stated within their motion to reconsider, the plaintiff's legal counsel seems to have thoroughly inspected the evidence, as apparent from their detailed assessment of their contents. Therefore, it can be, beyond a reasonable doubt, believed that a practicing lawyer licensed by the commonwealth would have noticed such facts, or rather, the inaccuracies within the stated facts.

Therefore, this motion is hereby granted.

As the incorrectness of the statement has not threatened the integrity of the case, or have caused a large consequence, and was mostly for the purposes of building a narrative, the court finds it that a fine of $5,000 (Five-Thousand-Redmont-Dollars) is appropriate. The court thereby instructs the Department of Homeland Security to issue the fines as appropriate.

The discovery period is still ongoing.

No, you cannot issue fines for that lol. Perjury is an indictable offense requiring a separate criminal trial. You may strike evidence though.

 

[zLost]

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO DISMISS

The defence moves that Prayer for Relief 3 in this case be dismissed, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:

1. Rule 5.5 of Court Rules & Procedure (link) states:
A Motion to Dismiss may be filed for failure to state a claim for relief, or against an claim for relief that has insufficient evidence to support the civil or criminal charge.

2. The Legal Damages Act (link), under "Legal Fees" states:
(3) Diminution of award:
(a) Lawyers are required to disclose their fee structure along with their proof of representation to the court. If they are representing a... additional legal fees.

The Plaintiff has not disclosed their fee structure. Therefore, there is no legal basis for the legal fees requested by the Plaintiff, and there is insufficient evidence regarding it.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO DISMISS

The defence moves that Prayer for Relief 3 in this case be dismissed, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:

1. Rule 5.5 of Court Rules & Procedure (link) states:
A Motion to Dismiss may be filed for failure to state a claim for relief, or against an claim for relief that has insufficient evidence to support the civil or criminal charge.

2. The Legal Damages Act (link), under "Legal Fees" states:
(3) Diminution of award:
(a) Lawyers are required to disclose their fee structure along with their proof of representation to the court. If they are representing a... additional legal fees.

The Plaintiff has not disclosed their fee structure. Therefore, there is no legal basis for the legal fees requested by the Plaintiff, and there is insufficient evidence regarding it.

Plaintiff requests a response your honor.

 

[zLost]

No, you cannot issue fines for that lol. Perjury is an indictable offense requiring a separate criminal trial. You may strike evidence though.

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - BREACH OF COURT PROCEDURE

If the Plaintiff wishes to object to the court's decision, they may file a motion to reconsider. Speaking out of turn like this is not appropriate.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - BREACH OF COURT PROCEDURE

If the Plaintiff wishes to object to the court's decision, they may file a motion to reconsider. Speaking out of turn like this is not appropriate.

Consider it a motion to reconsider.

 

[ColonelKai]

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - BREACH OF COURT PROCEDURE

If the Plaintiff wishes to object to the court's decision, they may file a motion to reconsider. Speaking out of turn like this is not appropriate.

This objection is sustained.

No, you cannot issue fines for that lol. Perjury is an indictable offense requiring a separate criminal trial. You may strike evidence though.

Consider it a motion to reconsider.

As someone who is familiar with the court system, I am sure you understand talking whenever you want to is not appropriate conduct for an attorney within the court. You are hereby warned by the court not to repeat this. If repeated, it will result in a contempt of court charge.

As for the question of the fine, it will be upheld by the court. The definition of an indictable offense does not require prosecution, but only a proof in a trial. There is precedent for perjury being enforced by the court (Dartanman v. Commonwealth, FCR 72 (2022)). This is further reinforced by the existence of the oath, and the fact that perjury is a separate objection from other inadequate evidence or incorrect information related objections.

The court will not take any further argumentation on the topic.

Plaintiff requests a response your honor.

The plaintiff may respond to the motion.

 

[ColonelKai]

If the plaintiff does not respond to the motion to dismiss within the discovery period, which I believe ends in 18 hours, the motion will be decided upon without the response.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

As for the question of the fine, it will be upheld by the court. The definition of an indictable offense does not require prosecution, but only a proof in a trial. There is precedent for perjury being enforced by the court (Dartanman v. Commonwealth, FCR 72 (2022)). This is further reinforced by the existence of the oath, and the fact that perjury is a separate objection from other inadequate evidence or incorrect information related objections.

Motion

Motion to Reconsider
The Constitution does not allow the Court to find people guilty of indictable crimes without a fair trial. I am astounded a federal Judge of all people would either be ignorant of or intentionally opposing the Constitution and the rights of people ("IX. Any citizen, criminal or otherwise will have the right to a speedy and fair trial presided over by an impartial Judicial Officer, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation, and to be confronted with the evidence against them, and to have the assistance of legally qualified counsel for their defense." and "XIV. Every citizen has the right to life, liberty, and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice."). Perjury requires proof of intent, which there is none. This would be demonstrated in a trial rather than circumstantial reasoning provided by the defense. Perjury requires that a fact is directly false as well. Furthermore, that fact was posted in a case filing; it is not evidence or testimony. You CANNOT object to testimony that is not testimony. We are ALLEGING that the defendant knew they were breaking the law and will prove it over the course of the trial. This is a DISPUTABLE claim, not some sort of admissible evidence that goes toward the truth of the matter asserted.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO DISMISS

The defence moves that Prayer for Relief 4 in this case be dismissed, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:

1. The Legal Damages Act (link), under "Legal Fees" states:
(3) Diminution of award:
(a) Lawyers are required to disclose their fee structure along with their proof of representation to the court. If they are representing a... additional legal fees.

The Plaintiff has not disclosed their fee structure. Therefore, there is no legal basis for the legal fees requested by the Plaintiff.

Dragon Law Firm is representing the plaintiffs and we are charging $12,000 (30% of the value of this case). We wish to correct the prayer to $12,000 instead of $16,500.

 

[zLost]

Motion

Motion to Reconsider
The Constitution does not allow the Court to find people guilty of indictable crimes without a fair trial. I am astounded a federal Judge of all people would either be ignorant of or intentionally opposing the Constitution and the rights of people ("IX. Any citizen, criminal or otherwise will have the right to a speedy and fair trial presided over by an impartial Judicial Officer, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation, and to be confronted with the evidence against them, and to have the assistance of legally qualified counsel for their defense." and "XIV. Every citizen has the right to life, liberty, and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice."). Perjury requires proof of intent, which there is none. This would be demonstrated in a trial rather than circumstantial reasoning provided by the defense. Perjury requires that a fact is directly false as well. Furthermore, that fact was posted in a case filing; it is not evidence or testimony. You CANNOT object to testimony that is not testimony. We are ALLEGING that the defendant knew they were breaking the law and will prove it over the course of the trial. This is a DISPUTABLE claim, not some sort of admissible evidence that goes toward the truth of the matter asserted.

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - BREACH OF COURT PROCEDURE

Court Policy regarding motions (link) states the following:

Only one motion to reconsider can be made per decision, with all arguments included in a single submission.

Following this policy, the Plaintiff cannot motion to reconsider a decision regarding a motion to reconsider. The Plaintiff is motioning to reconsider a decision on their previous motion to reconsider. Therefore, the Defence asks for this motion to reconsider to be struck. However, if this objection is overruled, we ask that we receive a chance to respond to this motion to reconsider.[/CENTER]

 

[Alexander P. Love]

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - BREACH OF COURT PROCEDURE

Court Policy regarding motions (link) states the following:

Only one motion to reconsider can be made per decision, with all arguments included in a single submission.

Following this policy, the Plaintiff cannot motion to reconsider a decision regarding a motion to reconsider. The Plaintiff is motioning to reconsider a decision on their previous motion to reconsider. Therefore, the Defence asks for this motion to reconsider to be struck. However, if this objection is overruled, we ask that we receive a chance to respond to this motion to reconsider.[/CENTER]

It says one motion per decision. I am motioning to reconsider the decision resulting from the other motion to reconsider. Furthermore, the Constitution grants the right to appeal offenses, and this MTR is the best way to do so at the start with the least burden on court resources.

 

[zLost]

Your Honor, I would like to request an in-game trial.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

Your Honor, I would like to request an in-game trial.

The plaintiff concurs

 

[ColonelKai]

Motion

Motion to Reconsider
The Constitution does not allow the Court to find people guilty of indictable crimes without a fair trial. I am astounded a federal Judge of all people would either be ignorant of or intentionally opposing the Constitution and the rights of people ("IX. Any citizen, criminal or otherwise will have the right to a speedy and fair trial presided over by an impartial Judicial Officer, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation, and to be confronted with the evidence against them, and to have the assistance of legally qualified counsel for their defense." and "XIV. Every citizen has the right to life, liberty, and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice."). Perjury requires proof of intent, which there is none. This would be demonstrated in a trial rather than circumstantial reasoning provided by the defense. Perjury requires that a fact is directly false as well. Furthermore, that fact was posted in a case filing; it is not evidence or testimony. You CANNOT object to testimony that is not testimony. We are ALLEGING that the defendant knew they were breaking the law and will prove it over the course of the trial. This is a DISPUTABLE claim, not some sort of admissible evidence that goes toward the truth of the matter asserted.

Motion denied.

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - BREACH OF COURT PROCEDURE

Court Policy regarding motions (link) states the following:

Only one motion to reconsider can be made per decision, with all arguments included in a single submission.

Following this policy, the Plaintiff cannot motion to reconsider a decision regarding a motion to reconsider. The Plaintiff is motioning to reconsider a decision on their previous motion to reconsider. Therefore, the Defence asks for this motion to reconsider to be struck. However, if this objection is overruled, we ask that we receive a chance to respond to this motion to reconsider.[/CENTER]

It says one motion per decision. I am motioning to reconsider the decision resulting from the other motion to reconsider. Furthermore, the Constitution grants the right to appeal offenses, and this MTR is the best way to do so at the start with the least burden on court resources.

This objection is overruled. The response to the objection is accurate and is upheld by the court.

Dragon Law Firm is representing the plaintiffs and we are charging $12,000 (30% of the value of this case). We wish to correct the prayer to $12,000 instead of $16,500.

The court will allow this modification, as the modifications can be made to prayers during discovery, and I was busy and therefore did not move forward with the case and was unable to grant or deny any extensions. Therefore, the motion is also dismissed, though the complaint brought up by it was valid.

The plaintiff concurs

Your Honor, I would like to request an in-game trial.

As I am in the USA and unable to access my Computer, I will put this court into recess pending finding another judge or justice which will take on an in-game trial. I thank both sides for their time with this case under my oversight.

 

[Dartanboy]

Good evening. I will be attempting to facilitate an in-game trial. Would all parties join the Judiciary Discord to create a sidebar to determine a time for the trial?

If you need an invite, send me a DM on Discord.

 

[ColonelKai]

Hello,

As I was notified by my colleague that the in-game trial has fallen through, we will continue over here.

Seeing as the Discovery period has ended, the plaintiff has 72 hours to file an opening statement.

 

[Kaiserin_]

Your honour,

As Boomsides is currently on a leave of absence and a number of other factors have inhibited our/my ability to prioritize this case, including Mr. Love's departure, the plaintiff would like to request a 48 hour extension on opening statements. Thank you.

 

[ColonelKai]

Considering the size of the law firm representing the plaintiff, the court will allow for a 24 hour extension from the original deadline.

 

[Kaiserin_]

Opening Statement

Your honour, opposing counsel, thank you for your time here today.

May it please the court,
We stand before you today in hopes that the two plaintiffs present in this case might receive just compensation for a blatant crime that affected them personally. The defendant, in clear violation and gross negligence of public policy, deprived my clients of the right to a fair, good-faith auction as guaranteed by law. Not only was this very clearly a breach of the auction guidelines as set out by the Executive, but it also directly harmed my clients by ridding them of the opportunity to acquire a plot that they were actively pursuing the purchase of.

On the facts
On the 17th of January, the defendant put up a plot for auction that both of the plaintiffs began bidding on separately. No buyout price was listed in the initial auction. The defendant later, in gross negligence of the law, illegally sold the plot directly to a third party, Plura72. The defendant continued carrying out the sale even as they became increasingly uncertain of the legality of such an action. The defendant attempted to edit the auction in order to “invalidate” it, and was told directly by the Secretary of the Department of Commerce that the original terms of the auction still stood, and that any failure to uphold such terms was a breach of policy. The defendant then went on to state “I didn’t sell it yet”, causing Pepecuu to enter another bid, before the defendant declared only five minutes later that the plot had indeed been sold to the third party. A number of excuses were given, and the defendant repeatedly acted dismissive toward others as they pointed out the wrongdoing. The auction was later canceled by the Department of Commerce, which issued an official warning to the defendant. No compensation was given to the other bidders who were deprived of their right to participate fairly in a public auction.

Auctions as Public Contracts
The Real Estate Guidelines listed publicly in the real estate section of the DemocracyCraft Discord states the following:

All bids are legally binding and all bidders therefore are obligated to uphold their stated bid.

Thus, public auctions and bids serve as legally binding spoken contracts between the auctioneer and the bidder. Breach of the guidelines set forth for auctions, and failure to uphold the terms of the agreement, thus constitutes a Breach of Contract, and auctions are governed by the Contracts Act. The latter states the following:

8- Misrepresentation
(1) Misrepresentation happens when a false statement induces another party to enter into a contract.
(a) Remedies for misrepresentation may include rescission, damages, or other appropriate relief;

and,

14 - Duty of Good Faith and Fair Dealing.
(1) Parties to a contract shall perform their respective duties and exercise their rights under the contract in good faith and in a manner that is fair and just.
(2) There exists an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing in every contract covered by this Act, whether or not expressly stated. This covenant shall be read into contracts to ensure that the parties act with honesty, integrity, and fairness in all aspects of their contractual relationship.

By falsely claiming that the plot had been sold, inducing Pepecuu to issue another legally binding bid, and then later admitting that it had indeed been illegally sold to the third party, the defendant committed Misrepresentation, which lists damages as appropriate relief. Further, by illegally selling the plot before the 24-hour bidding window had elapsed, while others were actively participating in the bid, the defendant failed to uphold his duty of good faith and fair dealing - the principles of honesty, integrity, and fairness were all thrown entirely out of the window.

Is the Contract Void?
The defence has correctly noted that the auction in question was officially canceled by the Department of Commerce. While the defence may assert that this waives any claim to a breach of contract, this is objectively false. The breaches of contract by the defendant occurred before the auction was canceled, and the fact that action was taken by the Department does not simply override the damages incurred by the plaintiffs. The termination of the auction by the Department means that, after such action, no further breaches could be made, not that breaches made while the agreement was active are suddenly null.

On damages
The plaintiffs have requested compensatory and consequential damages totaling $15,000 per plaintiff, and punitive damages totaling $25,000. Considering that both plaintiffs were deprived of the opportunity to purchase a property that was likely worth well over $23,000 (the exact amount remains unknown, as the auction was cut unduly short), and both had to suffer the loss of potential enjoyment that would come from owning such a property, the compensatory and consequential damages are well within the bounds of reason.
While the defence has correctly pointed out that a verbal warning was issued by the Department of Commerce for the defendant’s actions, no other formal or material action was taken to punish the defendant for their gross and outrageous negligence of the law. Auctions are intended to be a heavily regulated commercial activity in order to ensure fairness, and such egregious failure to uphold these regulations warrants deterrence far greater than a simple slap on the wrist. Further, while it is true that the defendant expressed some remorse for their actions, and indeed acknowledgement of their illegality after the fact, this show of remorse was interspersed by dismissive comments that hinted at the defendant’s continuing belief at the time that their conduct was not worthy of criticism or heed. It is the court’s responsibility to justly deter the further breaking of guidelines in such a critical market, and the punitive damages requested will serve to strongly discourage such future action from both the defendant and other observers. Thus, the plaintiffs urge the courts to reward full damages in this important case, sending a strong message in favor of public order, the upholding of contracts, and good-faith dealing.

The plaintiffs thank the court for their time.

 

[ColonelKai]

The defendant has 72 hours for their opening statement.

 

[zLost]

I apologize your honor, but I have recently been infected with malaria. I am asking for a 36 hour extension due to this. Thank you for your consideration.

 

[ColonelKai]

Approved.

 

[zLost]

Opening Statement

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OPENING STATEMENT

1. In regards to breach of contract, let's analyze the timeline of the auction:
- Auction being enlisted (17th January, 6:20 PM UTC)
- Plaintiff 1's bid (17th January, 6:22 PM UTC, 2 minutes after the auction's enlistment)
- Plaintiff 2's bid (17th January, 7:27 PM UTC, 1 hour 27 minutes after the auction's enlistment)
- DOC's cancelling of the auction (18th January, 1:27 PM UTC, 19 hours and 7 minutes after the auction's enlistment)

From this, we see that the DOC cancelled the auction before a breach of contract could occur, since it had not been 24 hours after Plaintiff 1 and Plaintiff 2's bids. Both the Plaintiffs had not fulfilled their obligations in the contract (which is to have it be 24 hours since your last bid) and the DOC in fact acknowledged that the contract was still active (P-004), until the contract was cancelled by them.
2. The Plaintiff has still not given any proof for compensatory damages which as stated in the original complaint were due to having to pause operations. Compensatory damages require actual proof of monetary loss, as mandated by the Legal Damages Act (link):

Compensatory damages will not be awarded without proof of pecuniary loss including compensation for harm to property, harm to earning capacity, and the creation of liabilities; unless they are special damage.

While the Opposing Counsel has argued that they missed out on owning a plot allegedly valued 23k, that is simply not possible as an auction can have only one winner so therefore both the Plaintiffs have not missed out on the chance of owning that plot.
3. The Opposing Counsel has mischaracterized the DOC's warning as a verbal warning, when the DOC has said that is an official warning (Exhibit D). A verbal warning is usually considered to be an unofficial warning, whereas here it's explicitly stated to be an official warning. Calling it a simple "slap on the wrist" is outrageous, considering the fact that this warning means that if the DOC believes the Defendant does something similar in the future, their rights to auctions and bidding will be revoked. This would collapse the Defendant's business and cause much harm and financial strain on them. The Defendant has already been deterred due to this.
4. The Opposing Counsel has framed their statements in a way which makes it seem like the Defendant randomly changed from being apologetic to being "condescending" throughout the conversation, however this is simply untrue. The Defendant was apologetic and remorseful after the DOC confirmed that what they did was against the rules. Before this, the Defendant was unsure regarding the legality of their actions , as they were confused due to the different interpretations being stated by other individuals. For example, Pepecuu or Plaintiff 2 stated, "I meannn an auctioneer can cancel a auction if not enough bids were received" and Plura72 stated, "one guy buyed rental rights for me for 10k inst, so its probably allowed", etc.

 

[ColonelKai]

Writ of Summons

@Pepecuu and @Boomsides are required to appear before the Federal Court in the case of Boomsides and Pepecuu v. Lucaa7377 as witnesses.

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.

 

[Pepecuu]

I am present your honor.

 

[lucaaaaMC]

I am present your honor.

 

[ColonelKai]

The plaintiff has 48 hours to present their question to the witnesses, after which the witnesses have 48 hours to answer accordingly.

 

[ColonelKai]

I am present your honor.

What are you present for? You were not summonsed as part of the witness requests?

 

[Kaiserin_]

The plaintiff has 48 hours to present their question to the witnesses, after which the witnesses have 48 hours to answer accordingly.

Thank you, your honour.

I am present your honor.

Good evening, Ms. Pepecuu. Thank you for your presence here today.
1. What were you planning on using the plot for that you bid on during January 17th?
2. Broadly speaking, how much more than your bid of $16,000 would you have been willing to spend on that plot?3. Was the experience of this auction very different from other real estate auctions you might have participated in?
4. How did it make you feel when the auctioneer prematurely sold off the land that you were bidding on?

 

[ColonelKai]

I have just noticed that Boomsides, despite being an original filant, has not obliged with the witness summons. They will be charged with a contempt of court unless they can provide to the court a reasonable alibi. The other witness examination may continue as usual.

 

[Pepecuu]

Thank you, your honour.


Good evening, Ms. Pepecuu. Thank you for your presence here today.
1. What were you planning on using the plot for that you bid on during January 17th?
2. Broadly speaking, how much more than your bid of $16,000 would you have been willing to spend on that plot?3. Was the experience of this auction very different from other real estate auctions you might have participated in?
4. How did it make you feel when the auctioneer prematurely sold off the land that you were bidding on?

Good evening Ms Kaizerin.

1. As it was a empty plot, my intension in its acquisition was to develop it into a small shopping center.
2. I would have been willing to pay the market rate for that plot at that time, would would have been about $45,000 to $50,000.
3. Initially, it was similar to other auctions, however the deviance happened when the auctioneer decided to accept a buyout offer despite not explicitly listing it in their auction thread.
4. I was devastated and extremely disappointed as plots were and still are hard to come by, thus I would have to wait a significant amount of time before a similar opportunity would arise.

 

[ColonelKai]

The defendant has 48 hours to cross examine the witness, and the witness has 48 hours to answer the questions after their submission.

 

[Kaiserin_]

I have just noticed that Boomsides, despite being an original filant, has not obliged with the witness summons. They will be charged with a contempt of court unless they can provide to the court a reasonable alibi. The other witness examination may continue as usual.

Your honour, Boomsides has been on a leave of absence from Dragon Law and has been unreponsive to messages since the 9th of February. While I cannot know his situation, it may be reasonable to believe that he has some outside real-life obligations preventing him from appearing before court.

The defendant has 48 hours to cross examine the witness, and the witness has 48 hours to answer the questions after their submission.

The plaintiff has follow-up questions for the witness, and would like to continue questioning.

 

[ColonelKai]

The plaintiff has follow-up questions for the witness, and would like to continue questioning.

My apologies, continue. Same time limits apply.

Your honour, Boomsides has been on a leave of absence from Dragon Law and has been unreponsive to messages since the 9th of February. While I cannot know his situation, it may be reasonable to believe that he has some outside real-life obligations preventing him from appearing before court.

I will need to hear from them before the end of the case.

 

[Kaiserin_]

My apologies, continue. Same time limits apply.

Thank you, your honour.

Ms. Pepecuu,
5. Before the premature buyout, did you have any intention of backing down from the auction?
6. You mentioned that land is scarce right now. To what extent did this premature buyout prevent you from being able to start up the shop that you were intending to make?
7. How did the auctioneer's behavior come off to you during the whole fiasco?

 

[Pepecuu]

Thank you, your honor.

Ms. Pepecuu,
5. Before the premature buyout, did you have any intention of backing down from the auction?
6. You mentioned that land is scarce right now. To what extent did this premature buyout prevent you from being able to start up the shop that you were intending to make?
7. How did the auctioneer's behavior come off to you during the whole fiasco?

5. I did not have an intent to back down from the auction before and up to the point of the premature buyout.
6. The premature buyout definitely did have a significant impact on my ability to set up a store, as I did not have a plot to set up my shop.
7. The auctioneer's behavior was erratic and unusual, as shown in the case filing and evidences provided.

 

[Kaiserin_]

No further questions from the plaintiff, your honour.

 

[ColonelKai]

The defendant has 48 hours to cross examine the witness, and the witness has 48 hours to answer the questions after their submission.

 

[zLost]

OBJECTION
Calls for a conclusion

2. Broadly speaking, how much more than your bid of $16,000 would you have been willing to spend on that plot?

This question assumes that the witness was already planning on buying the plot, and it also asks for an opinion, not a fact. Therefore, the Defense asks for the question and response from the witness to be struck.


OBJECTION
Ambiguous

"3. Was the experience of this auction very different from other real estate auctions you might have participated in?"

The question being asked is too broad, as every auction will inherently have a different experience in some regards. The bidders may bid different amounts, the bidders may have a different style of bidding, etc. The Plaintiff is not specific enough. Therefore, the Defense asks for the question and response from the witness to be struck.


OBJECTION
Narrative

The witness's response to Question 4 gives information not asked in the question, as they justify the reasons for feeling that way when the question has only asked how they felt, not why they have felt that way.


OBJECTION
Calls for a conclusion

Question 4 is asking for an opinion, not factual information. Therefore, the Defense asks for the question and response from the witness to be struck.


OBJECTION
Narrative/Hearsay

The witness's response to Question 7 gives unneeded information, as the witness is using information from the case and giving unnecessary information. The witness is supposed to testify, they should not need to cite anything from this case to testify.


OBJECTION
Relevance

In regards to Question 7, the witness's opinion on the Defendant's behavior is not relevant to this case.


OBJECTION
Assumes facts not in evidence/Leading Question

Question 6 states: "To what extent did this premature buyout prevent you from being able to start up the shop that you were intending to make?"

There has been no evidence so far to suggest that the Plaintiff actually intended to start up a shop. The question is also phrased in a way that would encourage the witness to state that they had intended to start up a shop due to the inclusion of the phrase "to what extent".

Note: I have used a different format for the objections then the one listed in court policy, to make it easier to file these objections.

 

[Kaiserin_]

OBJECTION
Calls for a conclusion


This question assumes that the witness was already planning on buying the plot, and it also asks for an opinion, not a fact. Therefore, the Defense asks for the question and response from the witness to be struck.


OBJECTION
Ambiguous

"3. Was the experience of this auction very different from other real estate auctions you might have participated in?"

The question being asked is too broad, as every auction will inherently have a different experience in some regards. The bidders may bid different amounts, the bidders may have a different style of bidding, etc. The Plaintiff is not specific enough. Therefore, the Defense asks for the question and response from the witness to be struck.


OBJECTION
Narrative

The witness's response to Question 4 gives information not asked in the question, as they justify the reasons for feeling that way when the question has only asked how they felt, not why they have felt that way.


OBJECTION
Calls for a conclusion

Question 4 is asking for an opinion, not factual information. Therefore, the Defense asks for the question and response from the witness to be struck.


OBJECTION
Narrative/Hearsay

The witness's response to Question 7 gives unneeded information, as the witness is using information from the case and giving unnecessary information. The witness is supposed to testify, they should not need to cite anything from this case to testify.


OBJECTION
Relevance

In regards to Question 7, the witness's opinion on the Defendant's behavior is not relevant to this case.


OBJECTION
Assumes facts not in evidence/Leading Question

Question 6 states: "To what extent did this premature buyout prevent you from being able to start up the shop that you were intending to make?"

There has been no evidence so far to suggest that the Plaintiff actually intended to start up a shop. The question is also phrased in a way that would encourage the witness to state that they had intended to start up a shop due to the inclusion of the phrase "to what extent".

Note: I have used a different format for the objections then the one listed in court policy, to make it easier to file these

Responses to Objections

Calls for a Conclusion
The evidence already established that the witness placed a bid on the plot. It goes without saying that she was willing to spend money on it. The Court has a vested interest in understanding the witness's valuation of the plot for the purpose of assessing damages.

Ambiguous
It goes without saying, given the facts of the case, that this auction was anomalous. This question seeks to establish the extent to which the anomaly in how this auction was held affected the personal bidding experience of the witness. The question asked was clear, and the witness appears to have had no difficulty in answering it.

Narrative
The witness was asked about her feelings. The reasoning for these feelings is directly related to the emotions the witness experienced, and thus is of value to the Court. Further, the witness's response is only one sentence long, and does not qualify as "lengthy" or exceptionally "detailed", as would be required for a narrative objection.

Calls for a Conclusion
Emotional distress is cited in the initial complaint as a justification for damages, and thus the witness's personal emotions are facts of the case.

Narrative/Hearsay
The witness is allowed to cite evidence that has been presented to the court, especially given that she appears in much of the evidence in question. There is no hearsay in this response, and 16 words certainly does not qualify as narrative.

Relevance
The presence or absence of remorse in the Defendant and the witness/plaintiff's personal experience in dealing with the Defendant are facts of this case. The witness's testimony as to the Defendant's behavior is incredibly relevant.

Assumes Facts Not in Evidence/Leading Question
The witness already testified in her response to Question 1 that she planned on setting up a shop in the plot in question. Question 6 serves to follow up on this response and provide the Court with details on exactly how obstructive the premature buyout was to the witness's ability to enact her plans. It goes without saying that an inability to buy land would prohibit one from setting up a shop - thus, the question of the exact extent was asked. Even if this assumption was incorrect, "none at all" is a perfectly valid answer to a question beginning with "to what extent".

 

[zLost]

Apologies for the late response, the Defence has no questions for the Plaintiff's witness.

 

[ColonelKai]

OBJECTION
Calls for a conclusion

This question assumes that the witness was already planning on buying the plot, and it also asks for an opinion, not a fact. Therefore, the Defense asks for the question and response from the witness to be struck.

The question is relevant, the argument that this is an assumption is irrelevant, and whatever amount they had been planning on spending is a relevant fact, not an opinion. Objection overruled.

OBJECTION
Ambiguous

"3. Was the experience of this auction very different from other real estate auctions you might have participated in?"

The question being asked is too broad, as every auction will inherently have a different experience in some regards. The bidders may bid different amounts, the bidders may have a different style of bidding, etc. The Plaintiff is not specific enough. Therefore, the Defense asks for the question and response from the witness to be struck.

While the question is at face value board indeed, looking at the context of the case, it is crystal clear what the question here is. Objection overruled.

OBJECTION
Narrative

The witness's response to Question 4 gives information not asked in the question, as they justify the reasons for feeling that way when the question has only asked how they felt, not why they have felt that way.

The answer of the witness is directly relevant to the question at hand, and it is not an excessively long narrative that spun off the question. Objection overruled.

OBJECTION
Calls for a conclusion

Question 4 is asking for an opinion, not factual information. Therefore, the Defense asks for the question and response from the witness to be struck.

As with the first objection, witnesses are allowed to be asked their emotional state, or their thoughts at the time as long as they are relevant to the case. If someone has had an opinion at the time of the events which a case revolves around, and it is relevant to the case itself in a way that the witness having that opinion at the time is factually important, that is not an opinion being asked for. That is a factual information being asked about the mental state and thoughts of that witness at the time. Objection overruled.

OBJECTION
Narrative/Hearsay

The witness's response to Question 7 gives unneeded information, as the witness is using information from the case and giving unnecessary information. The witness is supposed to testify, they should not need to cite anything from this case to testify.

Not only do neither of these objection forms match the justification, the witnesses are allowed to refer to evidence already in case that is publicly available, and they were a part of the evidence presented. This isnt information they had "needed to cite from this case". It saves us all time, and otherwise would be an unnecessary addition to the court. Objection overruled.

OBJECTION
Relevance

In regards to Question 7, the witness's opinion on the Defendant's behavior is not relevant to this case.

The intent of the defendant is relevant to the issue at hand. Building an overall case for the mental state, behaviour and possible justifications for their actions is a valid argument. Objection overruled.

OBJECTION
Assumes facts not in evidence/Leading Question

Question 6 states: "To what extent did this premature buyout prevent you from being able to start up the shop that you were intending to make?"

There has been no evidence so far to suggest that the Plaintiff actually intended to start up a shop. The question is also phrased in a way that would encourage the witness to state that they had intended to start up a shop due to the inclusion of the phrase "to what extent".

The plaintiff's answer is adequate. Objection overruled.

 

[ColonelKai]

The plaintiff has 72 hours for their closing statement.

 

[Boomsides]

Real-life obligations prevented me from being present for questioning, but I would like to continue pursuing this case.

 

[Kaiserin_]

Closing Statement

May it please the court,
Your honour, opposing counsel, witnesses, and other esteemed guests of the court, thank you for your time today. Throughout this trial, a number of arguments have come your way in defence of the defendant’s clearly outrageous and illegal behaviour. From technicalities, to “he’s really sorry”, these arguments have thoroughly failed to justify the flagrant misrepresentation and bad-faith dealing exhibited by the defendant in carrying out a public auction. Not only that, but witness testimony has showcased for the court the sheer extent to which this behaviour disrupted the normal economic functioning of those who participated in the auction, and has provided crucial context to understand just how objectionable the behaviour of the defendant has been.

Plaintiffs Boomsides and Pepecuu began bidding on the property auction that the defendant set up of their own will, with no intention of backing down from the auction. One plaintiff testified that the plot, an empty property, had a potential value of up to $50,000, given the scarcity of land and the plot’s location. Both plaintiffs placed valid and binding bids, but the defendant sold off the plot for a mere $23,000, less than half of what one plaintiff would likely have bought it for. With bids ongoing, the 24-hour window not yet having elapsed, and the initial bid message having listed no buyout price, this impromptu sellout represented a clear breach of the public contract that binds bidders and auctioneers on the part of the defendant. Not only this, but by lying about having not actually sold the plot and insinuating that the auction was still open before later revealing the truth, the defendant clearly misrepresented material facts while encouraging others to enter into contract with him.

Further, both plaintiffs’ earning capacity was materially harmed by the loss of the opportunity to purchase land in this scarce economy. One plaintiff testified that they had concrete plans to create a shopping center in the plot, an opportunity for earning that was thoroughly dashed by the premature cancellation of the auction. To this day, the plaintiff has been unable to secure land for this shopping center, and is likely to be unable to do so for quite some time. Another plaintiff stated that they had to temporarily pause their normal economic operations in order to secure funding to purchase the plot, and while this plaintiff was unable to testify due to unforeseen real-life circumstances, their statements should nonetheless be given heed.

As if that were not enough, the defendant’s behaviour during this whole fiasco showed a gross negligence for the law, and a disregard for public order that the court cannot justifiably leave unpunished. Between dismissive statements like “who cares enough” and “[this is a] completely legal crime”, the plaintiff’s testimony that the defendant’s behaviour was “erratic and unusual” can only be considered an understatement. Despite a formal warning from the Department of Commerce, the plaintiffs who were forced to deal with this erratic, bad-faith, and outrageous conduct in the context of a legally binding auction remain entirely uncompensated. Further, the defendant has been allowed to continue on without any material punishment or detriment for their egregious behaviour outside of what essentially amounts to being told “stop that”. After all of this, the plaintiffs are left “devastated and extremely disappointed” by the severe injustice wrought upon them, and turn to the courts for recourse.

To this end, the plaintiffs humbly request that the courts grant compensatory, consequential, and punitive relief in order to make up for the emotional loss and damage to earning capacity brought by the defendant’s actions, and to punish the defendant for their severe lack of judgement and blatant disregard for their duties to the public. Thank you.

 

[ColonelKai]

The defendant has 72 hours for their closing statement.

 

[juniperfig]

Greetings. I will be taking over as presiding officer for this case.

 

[zLost]

Your Honor, I ask for a 24 hour extension as I have an important exam the day after tomorrow. I apologize for such a late request, and for asking for an extension a 2nd time in this case.

 

[juniperfig]

Your Honor, I ask for a 24 hour extension as I have an important exam the day after tomorrow. I apologize for such a late request, and for asking for an extension a 2nd time in this case.

Granted. You may not receive further extensions in this case.

 

[zLost]

Objection

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

In the original filing of the lawsuit, the Plaintiff states:

The Plaintiffs were forced to pause their operations to participate in the auction, ensuring they had enough money to meet the bid amounts. This pause resulted in a loss of valuable time and potential revenue.

Note that the plural version of "Plaintiff" has been used, implying that both plaintiffs had to pause their operations to bid in the auction, according to the opposing counsel. The opposing counsel's closing statement has directly contradicted this statement, as they say:

One plaintiff testified that they had concrete plans to create a shopping center in the plot, an opportunity for earning that was thoroughly dashed by the premature cancellation of the auction....... Another plaintiff stated that they had to temporarily pause their normal economic operations in order to secure funding to purchase the plot, and while this plaintiff was unable to testify due to unforeseen real-life circumstances, their statements should nonetheless be given heed.

The opposing counsel has stated that only one Plaintiff had to pause their operations. Therefore, one of these statements is false, which constitutes Perjury. The opposing counsel has had adequate time to analyze the case and therefore there has to be intention to commit perjury, as precedented earlier in this case.

 

[zLost]

Objection

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

The opposing counsel has stated, in their closing statement:

To this day, the plaintiff has been unable to secure land for this shopping center, and is likely to be unable to do so for quite some time.

This is entirely false, with explicit proof to support this claim. In just a month following the incident of this lawsuit, Plaintiff 2 bought six commercial plots, with a majority of them being empty plots that would be suitable for a shopping center. Not only that, Plaintiff 2 has shown that they have funds amounting to over $1,000,000 by bidding that amount in an auction. There is no way that they are unable to afford a commercial plot. This statement has absolute evidence that proves it to be entirely false, and therefore we ask that the court strikes this and charges the opposing counsel with perjury. The opposing counsel has direct communication with Plaintiff 2, and this case has been ongoing for more than 2 months. There is no excuse to make such an egregiously false statement.

Spoiler: PROOF OF PERJURY

 

[Kaiserin_]

Objection

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

In the original filing of the lawsuit, the Plaintiff states:

The Plaintiffs were forced to pause their operations to participate in the auction, ensuring they had enough money to meet the bid amounts. This pause resulted in a loss of valuable time and potential revenue.

Note that the plural version of "Plaintiff" has been used, implying that both plaintiffs had to pause their operations to bid in the auction, according to the opposing counsel. The opposing counsel's closing statement has directly contradicted this statement, as they say:

One plaintiff testified that they had concrete plans to create a shopping center in the plot, an opportunity for earning that was thoroughly dashed by the premature cancellation of the auction....... Another plaintiff stated that they had to temporarily pause their normal economic operations in order to secure funding to purchase the plot, and while this plaintiff was unable to testify due to unforeseen real-life circumstances, their statements should nonetheless be given heed.

The opposing counsel has stated that only one Plaintiff had to pause their operations. Therefore, one of these statements is false, which constitutes Perjury. The opposing counsel has had adequate time to analyze the case and therefore there has to be intention to commit perjury, as precedented earlier in this case.

The closing statement submitted by the plaintiff does not contradict the original filing. Saying "one plaintiff had to pause their operations" is not mutually exclusive with "both plaintiffs paused their operations", and it is my understanding that "The Plaintiffs" in the original filing refers to both plaintiffs as a group, and thus an action taken by one plaintiff is an action taken by "The Plaintiffs". Further, it was already clarified in the initial case filing that "Plaintiff 1 was forced to pause all operations to reserve the necessary funds in case they were the winning bidder." If there was any controversy over this technicality, it should have been raised in the initial case filing, not during closing statements.

Objection

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

The opposing counsel has stated, in their closing statement:

To this day, the plaintiff has been unable to secure land for this shopping center, and is likely to be unable to do so for quite some time.

This is entirely false, with explicit proof to support this claim. In just a month following the incident of this lawsuit, Plaintiff 2 bought six commercial plots, with a majority of them being empty plots that would be suitable for a shopping center. Not only that, Plaintiff 2 has shown that they have funds amounting to over $1,000,000 by bidding that amount in an auction. There is no way that they are unable to afford a commercial plot. This statement has absolute evidence that proves it to be entirely false, and therefore we ask that the court strikes this and charges the opposing counsel with perjury. The opposing counsel has direct communication with Plaintiff 2, and this case has been ongoing for more than 2 months. There is no excuse to make such an egregiously false statement.

Spoiler: PROOF OF PERJURY

View attachment 53642View attachment 53643View attachment 53647View attachment 53648View attachment 53649

Plaintiff Pepecuu testified that "The premature buyout definitely did have a significant impact on my ability to set up a store, as I did not have a plot to set up my shop." The plaintiff's counsel interpreted this to mean that land had still not been secured for this shop, and it is not for the counsel to question the validity of their own witness's statements. While the defence has provided compelling evidence to contradict this interpretation of the plaintiff's testimony, this discrepancy appears to be the result of mere miscommunication, and was not an intentional lie, as would be required of a perjury charge. The plaintiff consents to the striking of the statement in question for the sake of clarity, and apologizes for the miscommunication.

 

[zLost]

Closing Statement

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CLOSING STATEMENT

Throughout this case, the Plaintiff has chosen to disregard and not address multiple of the arguments given by the Defence, such as Plaintiff 1 being heavily impaired during the time of alleged damages, Plaintiff 2 most likely not even being online when the auction began and when the alleged damages, the consequences of the warning given by the DOC, and much more. The Plaintiff has once again stated that the DOC's warning is a simple "stop that", but as stated in the opening statements, it is very obviously not just that. It is not a verbal warning but an official warning that brings the Defendant one step closer to being banned from auctions. The Plaintiff has also stated that the contract being void due to the DOC annulling the contract is a technicality, however this is obviously untrue. The Contracts Act intends to allow the contracts to be void if the terms give a condition for it and that condition is fulfilled. The DOC, acting as the facilitator and following the terms of the contract, voided the contract removing the responsibility of the Defendant to continue the auction.

There has been zero pecuniary damages for compensatory damages as required by the Legal Damages Act (link), with the only sort of actual evidence so far being a testimony by the Plaintiff, with the possibility of a preconceived notion or bias due to their involvement in the case. Plaintiff 1 most likely did not suffer any damages as argued in the opening statement, and Plaintiff 2 was likely to not even have been online during the time of the auction. Not only that, the DOC closed the auction before 24 hours had passed since the auction started, therefore none of the Plaintiffs would've even won the auction had the DOC not annulled the auction.

The Plaintiff's remorse is very relevant to this case, as punitive damages require outrageous conduct. The Plaintiff's regret for their actions shows that they did not intend to cause any damages to the Plaintiffs, and that they were only trying to diffuse the situation.

In regards to Compensatory Damages, the Legal Damages Act (link) allows judicial officers to determine if they should be paid out based on a standard of probabilities. Your Honor, I ask you how likely it is that an ordeal which lasted less than 24 hours emotionally affected the Plaintiffs enough to justify $15,000 in damages per Plaintiff. Plaintiff 2 appeared to have recovered in a short time following this situation, while Plaintiff 1 has shown a decrease in activity following the auction, showing that they would not have been affected much had they lost or won the auction. Not only that, damages for "emotional distress" as requested by the opposing counsel in consequential damages are not a part of them as stated in the Legal Damages Act (link).

 

[juniperfig]

Objection

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

In the original filing of the lawsuit, the Plaintiff states:

The Plaintiffs were forced to pause their operations to participate in the auction, ensuring they had enough money to meet the bid amounts. This pause resulted in a loss of valuable time and potential revenue.

Note that the plural version of "Plaintiff" has been used, implying that both plaintiffs had to pause their operations to bid in the auction, according to the opposing counsel. The opposing counsel's closing statement has directly contradicted this statement, as they say:

One plaintiff testified that they had concrete plans to create a shopping center in the plot, an opportunity for earning that was thoroughly dashed by the premature cancellation of the auction....... Another plaintiff stated that they had to temporarily pause their normal economic operations in order to secure funding to purchase the plot, and while this plaintiff was unable to testify due to unforeseen real-life circumstances, their statements should nonetheless be given heed.

The opposing counsel has stated that only one Plaintiff had to pause their operations. Therefore, one of these statements is false, which constitutes Perjury. The opposing counsel has had adequate time to analyze the case and therefore there has to be intention to commit perjury, as precedented earlier in this case.

Overruled. Intent to perjure has not been proven, and the statement in question, while somewhat confusing, is not actually false, but instead strange phrasing as a result of filing a joint lawsuit.

Objection

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

The opposing counsel has stated, in their closing statement:

To this day, the plaintiff has been unable to secure land for this shopping center, and is likely to be unable to do so for quite some time.

This is entirely false, with explicit proof to support this claim. In just a month following the incident of this lawsuit, Plaintiff 2 bought six commercial plots, with a majority of them being empty plots that would be suitable for a shopping center. Not only that, Plaintiff 2 has shown that they have funds amounting to over $1,000,000 by bidding that amount in an auction. There is no way that they are unable to afford a commercial plot. This statement has absolute evidence that proves it to be entirely false, and therefore we ask that the court strikes this and charges the opposing counsel with perjury. The opposing counsel has direct communication with Plaintiff 2, and this case has been ongoing for more than 2 months. There is no excuse to make such an egregiously false statement.

Overruled. Intent to perjure has not been proven.
It is entirely possible that both "the Plaintiff has been unable to secure land for this shopping center" and "the Plaintiff has purchased six commercial plots in the past month" are both valid statements. However, considering a balance of probabilities, it is exceedingly likely that at least one of the six properties purchased by the Plaintiff could be used as a shopping center, and I am comfortable enough in this assessment to agree that the statement is false.
However, perjury requires intent. There is no evidence that the Plaintiff's counsel was aware of these six purchases and certainly no evidence that the Plaintiff's counsel intentionally lied or misrepresented facts to the court.

The statement in question shall be struck by request of both the Plaintiff and Defence.

With that, the court will hereby enter recess pending verdict.

 

[juniperfig]

Verdict

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
VERDICT
Boomsides and Pepecuu v. Lucaa7377 [2025] FCR 10

I. PLAINTIFF'S POSITION
1. The Defendant illegally canceled the ongoing auction mid-process, violating the Real Estate Guidelines and the Contracts Act by failing to complete the 24-hour bidding window and selling directly to a third party.
2. The Defendant thereby breached his contractual obligations by denying the Plaintiffs the chance to continue participating in an active, legally regulated auction.
3. By encouraging further bids while simultaneously completing a private sale, the Defendant engaged in misrepresentation, inducing the Plaintiffs to remain in (or re-enter) a contract under false pretenses.
4. The Defendant’s dismissive and mocking comments (e.g., “Who cares enough?”) and subsequent lies about the property’s status constitute a violation of the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing.
5. The Plaintiffs argue they suffered financial and emotional harm due to pausing business operations in anticipation of the auction’s outcome—interrupting their earnings to secure funds—and ultimately lost the property.

II. DEFENDANT'S POSITION
1. The Defence argues that the Plaintiffs have not shown concrete evidence of any compensatory damages—such as verifiable financial loss or genuinely “paused operations”—especially given how quickly events transpired.
2. The Defendant contends that the Department of Commerce (DOC) formally canceled the auction before the 24 hour timeline had elapsed for a winning bid, meaning the contract was effectively voided before a breach could be fully realized. Consequently, the Defendant believes there was no actionable violation once the DOC intervened.
3. The Defendant asserts that, once made aware of the auction violation, they showed remorse and did not intend to act maliciously. Confusion over whether a direct sale was permissible was partly due to misinformation from a third party.
4. The Defence contends that punitive damages are unwarranted because the Defendant’s behavior, while arguably a mistake, was not so egregious as to justify extra penalties—particularly given the official warning already issued by the DOC.
5. The Defence emphasizes that this incident took place over a very brief period, challenging the Plaintiffs’ claims of extensive disruption or significant emotional harm.

III. THE COURT OPINION
The Plaintiff’s legal basis for their claims all fall under the Contracts Act. Therefore, I must determine if the Defendant was contractually bound to the plaintiffs.

Were the bids a legally binding contract? No.
Precedent states that winning bids are legally binding contracts (Ansgard_Ist v. MelisaMinecrft74 [2022] FCR 11, FlyingBlocks v. dodrio3 [2023] DCR 1).
Neither Plaintiff’s bid ever “won” here, because the DOC canceled the auction before it could conclude. Furthermore, awarding damages for a breach of contract to two individuals who were actively bidding against each other would be illogical—only one of them could have ended up with a valid contract, had it been formed. Treating these in-progress bids as legally binding contracts would also undermine the DOC’s explicit right to terminate an auction at any time for any reason.

Are citizens contractually obligated to uphold the DOC’s Real Estate Guidelines? No.
I cannot confidently conclude that the DOC’s Real Estate Guidelines form a legally binding contract. While posting in the real estate guidelines thread might satisfy offer, acceptance, consideration, and capacity on paper, the element of intent cannot be proven. There is no evidence the Defendant knew about these guidelines, no warning is given before making a post, and I personally found it quite difficult to locate them myself. Guidelines that are essentially hidden should not be presumed legally binding.
That said, citizens can still face consequences for ignoring the Real Estate Guidelines—just not under contract law. It is a procedural violation rather than a contractual breach. The DOC can (and did) punish citizens for breaching their guidelines. That does not, however, transform these guidelines into an enforceable contract.

Because there was no contractual obligation between the Defendant and the Plaintiffs, I cannot award punitive damages for misrepresentation, breach of contract, or breach of good faith and fair dealing.
I also concur with the Defence that there is no solid evidence of pecuniary loss. Nothing was submitted to substantiate the proposed future earnings from a shopping center or any alleged losses from pausing operations. General assurances are insufficient to demonstrate actual financial harm.

Similarly, while emotional distress may be troubling, it is not, by itself, grounds for damages. The court would require proof of genuine psychological harm—frustration or disappointment alone do not rise to a compensable threshold.

Finally, since the DOC has already warned the Defendant, there is no need for a formal court order requiring adherence to auction procedures. The DOC’s established authority and prior actions are sufficient.

IV. DECISION
I hereby rule in favour of the Defence, and grant no Prayers for Relief.

The Federal Court thanks all involved.