CreeperTD
Citizen
RBA Councillor
Supporter
Homeland Security Department
Interior Department
CreeperTD
RBA Councillor
- Joined
- May 24, 2026
- Messages
- 312
- Thread Author
- #1
Case Filing
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION
Cr_2007 and Klawddddddd (Represented by CreeperTD of Theory, Talion, and Partners Inc.)
Plaintiff
v.
slapout
Defendant
COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:
WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF
I. PARTIES
1. Cr_2007 (Plaintiff)
2. Klawddddddd (Plaintiff)
3. slapout (Defendant)
II. FACTS
1. On the day of June 10, 2026, at approximately 5:36 PM CDT, Plaintiff Cr_2007 received a message from the Defendant offering to sell a golden drill for 10000 DC$. (P-001)
2. Plaintiff Cr_2007 and the Defendant negotiated the price of the golden drill for the next 4 minutes, ultimately agreeing to a price of 8000 DC$, and the Defendant said to meet in Willow “if interested,” which the Plaintiff then warped to. (P-002, P-003, P-004)
3. Once meeting in Willow, Plaintiff Cr_2007 further conversed with the defendant, and was convinced to modify their agreement and to instead use a chestshop for the purchase, and then proceeded to teleport to Reveille spawn at the request of the Defendant. (P-005)
4. The Defendant then led the Plaintiff to a chest shop located at Revstall029 (2605, 73, 3936), in which an item named “Chest#6WX” was for sale. If a player runs the command /find Chest#6WX, the resulting GUI will display it as a Golden Drill. (P-017, P-022)
5. The Plaintiff then questioned the legitimacy of the offer, leading the Defendant to offer to do a normal exchange without the chest shop, which the Plaintiff was only willing to do if the Defendant mailed it to them first or placed down the drill, both of which the Defendant Refused to do. (P-006, P-008, P-009, P-010)
6. The Plaintiff, after having the Defendant reassure them that the offer was genuine, purchased 1 item named “Chest#6WX” from slapout’s chest shop for the price of 8000 DC$. (P-013, P-023)
7. After the Plaintiff purchased the item, upon examination it was revealed that the item was not a Golden Drill, but rather a renamed chest. (P-015)
8. After the purchase, the Defendant stopped communicating with the Plaintiff, and left the game. (P-014)
9. The next day, on June 11, 2026 at 6:36 PM CDT Plaintiff Klawddddddd received a message from the Defendant offering the same deal: a golden drill for 10000 DC$. The Plaintiff declined. (P-018)
10. Around 10 minutes later, the Plaintiff was contacted by an acquaintance, ilikekoby6576, who talked about how he was offered the same deal by the Defendant, outlining the details given to him. ilikekoby6576 expressed doubts about the deal, and outlined a similar experience to what Plaintiff Cr_2007 experienced, and told the Plaintiff that he declined the deal. (P-019,P-020)
11. After the recounting given by ilikekoby6576, the Plaintiff decided that the seemingly very good deal may be worth the risk, and asked to go see the chest.(P-021)
12. After arriving at the shop, the Plaintiff expressed to his acquaintance that “It is a golden drill,” believing the chestshop to be legitimate. The Plaintiff reasoned that this was true since when entering the name of the item in /find, it appeared as a golden drill. (P-023)
13. The Plaintiff Klawddddddd then purchased 1 item named “Chest6WX” from the Defendant’s chestshop for 10000 DC$ at approximately 6:15 PM CDT. The Plaintiff at first thought that it was in fact a golden drill, and immediately sold it to their acquaintance for the same price (10000 DC$), but ilikekoby6576 quickly came to the realization that it was not actually a drill. The Plaintiff afterwards returned the money to ilikekoby6576. (P-024, P-025)
14. All parties had at least 6 hours of playtime in the last 7 days as of June 13, 2026 at approximately 9:16 PM CDT. (P-026)
14. The Defendant has at the time of filing failed to deliver a golden drill to either Plaintiff, nor has the Defendant returned their money.
III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. Breach of Contract (Redmont Civil Code Act Part VI, §1)
In both incidents, a valid contract was formed between each of the Plaintiffs and the Defendant as defined by Contracts Act §4. In the case of Cr_2007, the contract was actively negotiated and revised through messages before the Plaintiff interacted with a chestshop, clearly displaying an offer in both messages and on the sign in the chestshop, one golden drill. Even if one considers that the sign on the shop itself did not explicitly read golden drill, but rather “Chest#6WX,” the Defendant presented that item in both words and server commands as a golden drill when they set up the chestshop. Although the Plaintiff Klawddddddd did not acknowledge a written offer given by the Defendant, the sign on the chestshop itself constitutes an offer. The action of acceptance was the same for both plaintiffs: the choice to use the chestshop after looking at the offer on the sign. The actions and words of all parties illustrated intent, all parties had the required capacity to enter a contract (at least 6 hours of playtime), and the exchange of something of value was agreed upon and was meant to occur.
The Defendant, however breached the contract by failing to perform their part of the contract, the delivery of a golden drill, after the Plaintiffs performed their part. Either through messages or through text on a sign, the Defendant proposed and agreed to a contract, which they failed to fulfill.
2. Misrepresentation (RCCA Part VI, §2)
The Defendant’s actions clearly fit the definition of Misrepresentation for both plaintiffs in its entirety. As defined by RCCA Part VI §2:
The Defendant made a false statement of fact in both words and text: they claimed to be offering a golden drill, and repeatedly swore that the item was in fact a golden drill. This led both Plaintiffs to enter into a contract, which resulted in both failing to receive a golden drill at significant monetary loss.
3. Misleading Conduct in Trade or Commerce (RCCA Part VI, §3)
The Defendant intentionally engaged in misleading, deceptive conduct with their careful naming of the item to ensure that their chestshop would appear to be offering a legitimate sale rather than a fraudulent one.
4. Failure to Deliver Goods or Services (RCCA Part VI, §4)
The Defendant’s creation of a chestshop that is presented as selling golden drills, and the subsequent failure on the part of the plaintiff to deliver a golden drill following the exchange of money as a result of the use of a chestshop constitutes a failure to provide promised goods under a valid transaction and/or contract.
5. Punitive Damages (RCCA Part III, §3)
The Defendant engaged in outrageous conduct in multiple ways in these two incidents. For one, the Defendant showed a clear intent to disadvantage the Plaintiffs by misrepresenting what was being offered. The Defendant also displayed a clear indifference to the damage caused by his conduct, as he has engaged in the same conduct repeatedly towards multiple individuals. The Defendant has also displayed deception and dishonesty in his overall conduct, shown by his renaming of a regular chest to make it appear as a golden drill when using server commands, among other actions. In addition, as displayed by the two Plaintiffs in this case, the Defendant engaged in the same or similar conduct repeatedly; as shown by the evidence, the Defendant engaged in this type of behavior on at least three separate occasions.
IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following relief from the Defendant:
1. $18000 in compensatory damages for the losses incurred as a result of the Defendant’s Breach of Contract ($8000 for Cr_2007, $10000 for Klawddddddd) (RCCA Part III §2
2. If compensatory damages are not granted, then restitution in the form of $18000 for those losses (RCCA Part X §1) OR
3. Specific performance in the form of a golden drill (RCCA Part VI §4) OR
4. Rescission of the $18000 in funds (RCCA Part VI §3).
5. $32000 in punitive damages (RCCA Part III §3).
6. Up to 450 Civil Penalty Units (RCCA Part VI §3&4)
7. Legal fees amounting to 30% of the total damages awarded, payable to Theory, Talion & Partners Inc.
Total Primary Claim: $50000 plus up to 450 Civil Penalty Units ($45000) plus up to $28500 in legal fees.
V. EVIDENCE
Note: All redaction was done in the interests of Privacy in accordance with the definition of personal information in Privacy Act §4(1).
Due to issues with the forums, everything is temporarily attached in a Google doc. The evidence will be uploaded directly to a forum post upon the resolution of this issue. Cr_2007 and Klawddddddd v. slapout Evidence List (Temporary)
VI. WITNESSES
1. Cr_2007
2. Klawddddddd
3. slapout
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 15th day of June 2026.
Motion
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION FOR EMERGENCY INJUNCTION
Your Honor,
The Defendant currently has very little in their balance, however the Plaintiff believes that the Defendant has purposefully used the money gained from this incident to purchase valuable items, as can be seen in the evidence labeled P-027. This evidence illustrates that the Defendant may plan to avoid having money in their balance in order to prevent proper collection of money owed in verdicts, and may even attempt to transfer these assets to another account or user without the court’s knowledge during proceedings. The Plaintiff also worries that if the chestshop at Revstall029 is allowed to continue operation, the Defendant will continue to inflict damages on others. Due to these circumstances, the Plaintiff humbly requests that:
1. The Court orders the assets of the Defendant be frozen until a judgement can be reached in light of the evidence that the Defendant may attempt to abscond and frustrate judgement on this case.
2. The Department of Homeland Security seize the Defendant’s chestshop at Revstall029 for the duration of proceedings.
