- Thread Author
- #1
Case Filing
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION
CatGuy666 (Represented by J0kesOnU of Theory, Talion & Partners Inc.)
Plaintiff
v.
_ThatBritishGuy_
Defendant
COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:
WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF
I. PARTIES
1. CatGuy666 (Plaintiff)
2. _ThatBritishGuy_ (Defendant)
II. FACTS
1. On or around the 18th of May 2026, the Plaintiff used the in-game general
chat to solicit any player with the Mechanic job to craft a Hood Ornament.
(Evidence: P-01)
2. The Defendant, _ThatBritishGuy_, responded to this solicitation in the
in-game general chat. (Evidence: P-01)
3. The Plaintiff requested the Defendant craft a Hood Ornament, representing
that all necessary materials were in their possession. (Evidence: P-01)
4. At no point during the formation of this agreement did either party
discuss, request, offer, or agree upon any monetary payment.
(Evidence: P-01, P-02)
5. The Defendant responded "Sure," constituting clear and unambiguous
acceptance of the Plaintiff's offer as stated: crafting the Hood Ornament
in exchange for the Plaintiff's materials, with no payment term attached.
(Evidence: P-02)
6. A valid contract was thereby formed under the Contracts Act §4: the offer
was clear, acceptance was unambiguous and mirrored the offer's terms,
consideration was exchanged (materials for crafting service), both parties
demonstrated intent to be bound, and both possessed legal capacity.
7. The parties met at Northern Spawn and moved to a location to complete the
exchange. (Evidence: P-03)
8. The Plaintiff transferred to the Defendant 2 Diamond Blocks and 5 Gold
Cash, the materials required to craft the Hood Ornament.
(Evidence: P-03)
9. The Defendant successfully crafted the Hood Ornament using the Plaintiff's
materials. (Evidence: P-04)
10. Only after receiving the Plaintiff's property and completing the item did
the Defendant demand $500DC "for the service," a payment condition never
disclosed, offered, or agreed upon at any prior point. (Evidence: P-04)
11. The Plaintiff refused, stating no payment had been agreed to, and demanded
return of the Hood Ornament. (Evidence: P-04)
12. The Defendant left the area retaining the Hood Ornament, without
delivering it to the Plaintiff. (Evidence: P-04)
13. The Plaintiff publicly stated in the in-game general chat that the
Defendant had committed theft, stating "british guy is a theif" and
"he stole meh 2 diamond blocks and 5 gold cashes." (Evidence: P-04)
14. The Plaintiff sent the Defendant a formal in-game mail demanding return
of the Hood Ornament and warning of legal action. (Evidence: P-05)
15. The Plaintiff contacted the Defendant via the /msg command reiterating
the demand and warning of legal consequences. (Evidence: P-06)
16. The Defendant has failed and continues to fail to deliver the Hood
Ornament or otherwise remedy the harm caused, constituting an ongoing
deprivation of the Plaintiff's property.
III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. Breach of Contract
Redmont Civil Code Act Part VI §1; Contracts Act §4, §7, §12
A valid contract was formed between the Plaintiff and Defendant under the
Contracts Act §4. The Plaintiff's offer was clear: craft a Hood Ornament
in exchange for the necessary materials, with no payment discussed. The
Defendant's acceptance of "Sure" mirrored those terms exactly. The
Plaintiff's materials constituted valid consideration for the Defendant's
crafting service. Under Contracts Act §4(c), consideration need not be
adequate, only sufficient, and materials exchanged for labour plainly
satisfies this standard.
The Defendant breached this contract in two ways: (i) by unilaterally
imposing a $500DC payment condition that was never a term of the agreement,
after the Plaintiff had already transferred their property; and (ii) by
refusing to deliver the Hood Ornament, failing their core contractual
obligation under Contracts Act §7.
The Defendant further violated the implied covenant of good faith and fair
dealing under Contracts Act §12, which is read into every contract under
Redmont law. Accepting materials under an agreed-upon exchange and then
withholding the product of that exchange to extract unauthorized payment
is a paradigmatic breach of good faith.
This violation is Strict Liability under RCCA Part VI §1. The Defendant's
intent is not required to establish liability; the breach occurred and
the harm followed.
2. Misrepresentation
Redmont Civil Code Act Part VI §2; Contracts Act §8
By accepting the Plaintiff's offer without disclosing any payment
requirement, the Defendant made an implied false statement of material
fact: that the terms as presented (materials-for-service, no payment)
were the complete terms of the agreement. This representation induced the
Plaintiff to transfer 2 Diamond Blocks and 5 Gold Cash. Had the Plaintiff
known a $500DC demand would follow, they would not have transferred their
property. The Plaintiff suffered direct loss as a result.
The Plaintiff is entitled to Rescission of the transaction and restitution
of the transferred materials or their fair market value.
3. Unjust Enrichment
Redmont Civil Code Act Part X §1
The Defendant obtained the Plaintiff's materials, which were used as the
input for the Hood Ornament, and is retaining the Hood Ornament itself,
all at the Plaintiff's expense. There is no legal justification for
retaining either benefit. The Defendant received the materials under a
valid contract and refused to fulfil the corresponding delivery obligation.
Retaining both the consumed materials and the completed product constitutes
unjust enrichment, entitling the Plaintiff to Restitution.
4. Misleading Conduct in Trade or Commerce
Redmont Civil Code Act Part VI §3
The Defendant, acting in their professional capacity as a Mechanic engaged
in the supply of crafting services, engaged in misleading and deceptive
conduct in connection with the supply of those services. The Defendant
agreed to perform the service, accepted the Plaintiff's materials,
completed the service, and only then, with the Plaintiff's property already
transferred and irrecoverable, revealed a payment demand the Plaintiff had
no prior opportunity to evaluate or decline.
This conduct was intentional: the payment demand was timed specifically to
occur after the point of no return for the Plaintiff. No reasonable person
exercising ordinary care could have anticipated an undisclosed $500DC
demand following an agreement in which payment was never raised. The
puffery defense does not apply; the plaintiff-reliance defense does not
apply, as the Plaintiff had no basis on which to anticipate or protect
against an undisclosed payment condition.
The Plaintiff seeks the maximum of 250 Civil Penalty Units under this
section.
5. Failure to Deliver Goods or Services
Redmont Civil Code Act Part VI §4
The Defendant agreed under a valid transaction to craft and deliver a Hood
Ornament to the Plaintiff. The Defendant completed the item and then
refused, without lawful excuse, to deliver it. A payment demand invented
unilaterally after the agreement was formed and after the Plaintiff's
property was received is not a lawful excuse within the meaning of
RCCA Part VI §4.
The Plaintiff seeks Specific Performance in the form of the Hood Ornament
and 200 Civil Penalty Units under this section.
6. Conversion
Redmont Civil Code Act Part VII §7(a), §7(b), §7(c)(ii), §7(c)(v)
The Defendant wrongfully obtained the Plaintiff's materials (2 Diamond
Blocks and 5 Gold Cash) and is intentionally withholding the resulting
Hood Ornament, depriving the Plaintiff of their property. The Defendant
obtained the materials through deception: by implying through their conduct
and unqualified acceptance that the exchange would proceed on the agreed
terms, while concealing an intention to withhold the completed item pending
undisclosed payment. This satisfies §7(c)(ii) (obtaining property through
deception) and §7(c)(v) (obtaining property by false promise pursuant to
a scheme to defraud).
The §7(e) defense, that the Defendant reasonably believed they had a right
to the property, is unavailable. The contract contained no payment term.
The Defendant accepted the offer without raising any payment condition.
A belief that one is entitled to withhold another's property pending a
payment condition one invented unilaterally, after the other party has
already performed, is not a reasonable belief as a matter of law. The
Defendant created the very situation they now seek to use as justification.
The Plaintiff seeks Treble Damages and Restitution under this section.
7. Punitive Damages
Redmont Civil Code Act Part III §3(2)(b)(iii) and §3(2)(b)(iv)
The Defendant's conduct independently satisfies two grounds for punitive
damages.
Under §3(2)(b)(iii): The Defendant acted with reckless indifference to
whether harm would result. They accepted materials under a clear agreement,
completed the work, and withheld the product without any regard for the
Plaintiff's resulting loss.
Under §3(2)(b)(iv): The Defendant's conduct was dishonest, deceptive, and
in bad faith. The undisclosed payment demand was engineered to occur only
after the Plaintiff had already transferred their property, deliberately
removing the Plaintiff's ability to make an informed decision about whether
to proceed.
Taken together, this conduct represents a substantial departure from
acceptable commercial standards and warrants punishment beyond
compensation alone.
IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. $1,296.60DC in Treble Damages, representing three times the fair market
value of the materials transferred by the Plaintiff (2 Diamond Blocks and
5 Gold Cash, fair market value $432.20DC), pursuant to the Conversion
claim under RCCA Part VII §7.
2. The Hood Ornament as Specific Performance, pursuant to the Failure to
Deliver claim under RCCA Part VI §4; in the alternative, $432.20DC in
Restitution representing the fair market value of the Hood Ornament,
should Specific Performance no longer be practicable.
3. $1,728.80DC in Punitive Damages, pursuant to RCCA Part III §3.
4. Up to 450 Civil Penalty Units ($45,000DC at $100 per unit), comprising:
- Up to 250 Civil Penalty Units under RCCA Part VI §3
(Misleading Conduct in Trade or Commerce)
- Up to 200 Civil Penalty Units under RCCA Part VI §4
(Failure to Deliver Goods or Services)
5. Legal fees at 30% of the total case value of $48,025.40DC (comprising
$3,025.40DC in monetary damages and $45,000DC in Civil Penalty Units),
amounting to $14,407.62DC, pursuant to RCCA Part III §7(2)(a), subject
to the Federal Court minimum of $6,000DC under RCCA Part III §7(2)(c).
Total Primary Claim: $3,025.40DC in damages, up to 450 Civil Penalty Units
($45,000DC), the Hood Ornament (or $432.20DC in the alternative), and
$14,407.62DC in legal fees.
Evidence:
- P-01: Chat log showing Plaintiff's general chat solicitation and
Defendant's initial response
- P-02: Chat log showing Defendant's acceptance ("Sure") and confirmation
of the arrangement
- P-03: Chat log showing the parties meeting at Northern Spawn and the
transfer of materials
- P-04: Chat log showing the Defendant's payment demand, the Plaintiff's
refusal, the Defendant's departure, and the Plaintiff's subsequent
public statements
- P-05: In-game mail from Plaintiff to Defendant demanding return of the
Hood Ornament
- P-06: /msg exchange between Plaintiff and Defendant reiterating the demand
Witnesses:
- Staff members with access to drop logs for CatGuy666 and _ThatBritishGuy_
between 18 May 2026 00:00 UTC and 21 May 2026 00:00 UTC, to be called
during the discovery phase pursuant to the court's order.
By making this submission, I agree I understand the penalties of lying in
court and the fact that I am subject to perjury should I knowingly make a
false statement in court.
DATED: This 11th day of June 2026
