Lawsuit: Pending DeltaruneTMRW v. Culls [2025] FCR 111

[DeltaruneTMRW]

Case Filing

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


DeltaruneTMRW
Plaintiff

v.

Culls
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF

On October 17, 2025, I put one of my plots, s026, up for auction. A day later, the defendant, Culls, placed a bid for $67,500, then tried to remove it. DOC officials confirmed the bid was still valid, the auction ended with Culls as the winner and since the Culls has blocked me on discord, refused to pay his bid and claimed both that he had no money and that he planned to leave the server to avoid paying me.

I. PARTIES
1. DeltaruneTMRW - Plaintiff
2. Culls - Defendant
3. ElysiaCrynn - Witness

II. FACTS
1. On October 17, 2025, the plaintiff posted an auction in the #realestate forum of the DemocracyCraft discord server for plot S026. (P-001)
2. A day later, the defendant made a bid for $67,500, then shortly attempted to withdraw it by deleting their message. They were then corrected by both the plaintiff and ElysiaCrynn, who confirmed that their bid was still valid. (P-002)
3. A day later, on October 19, 2025, the bid lapsed and the auction ended, with the defendant as the winner. (P-003)
4. The defendant proceeded then to claim that they had no money, blocked the plaintiff on discord, and suggested by mail that they planned to quit the server to avoid payment, as well as other fines and penalties stemming from separate ongoing legal action. (P-004 + P-005)


III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
Breach of Contract

Per DOC guidelines, auction bids are legally binding, and can only be terminated via mutual agreement. The plaintiff has refused to terminate this agreement, which is her right. Defendant's attempts to get out of their obligations by deleting multiple messages in the auction thread, and their threats to quit in order to avoid payment and legal action, also constitute a violation of the defendant's duty of good faith and fair dealing per the Contracts Act.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. $67,500 in compensatory damages, the sum of the defendant's winning bid
2. $30,000 in punitive damages for flagrant, severe violations of the Contracts Act
3. 30% legal fees per the Legal Damages Act, amounting to $29,250
4. The court to issue an injunction prohibiting the defendant from participating in future auctions for 14 days,

V. EVIDENCE

Spoiler: P-001

Spoiler: P-002

Spoiler: P-003

Spoiler: P-004

Spoiler: P-005

Witnesses:
1) ElysiaCrynn

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 nineteenth day of October, 2025

 

[DeltaruneTMRW]

Amended the title of the filing to reflect the actual docket number (FCR 110 -> FCR 111). Apologies for the mistake.

 

[DeltaruneTMRW]

Requesting permission to amend the written statement and fact 1 of the complaint to reflect the actual date the auction was created (December 17, 2025 -> October 17, 2025). Again, apologies for the repeated mistakes, it's been a long few weeks for me.

 

[AmityBlamity]

Writ of Summons

@Culls, is required to appear before the federal Court in the case of DeltaruneTMRW v. Culls [2025] FCR 111

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.

 

[AmityBlamity]

Requesting permission to amend the written statement and fact 1 of the complaint to reflect the actual date the auction was created (December 17, 2025 -> October 17, 2025). Again, apologies for the repeated mistakes, it's been a long few weeks for me.

Granted.

 

[Vennefly]

Your honor,

Defendant is present, MZLD Law representing.

Spoiler: Proof of representation

 

[AmityBlamity]

Your honor,

Defendant is present, MZLD Law representing.

Spoiler: Proof of representation

View attachment 65004

You have 48 hours to file an Answer to Complaint.

 

[Vennefly]

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO DISMISS - LACK OF CLAIM (Rule 5.5) & LACK OF STANDING (Rule 5.12)

Your Honor,

The defence moves that the complaint in this case be dismissed with prejudice, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:

I. Lack of Claim
1. The Plaintiff's complaint rests entirely upon the assertion that a contract between Plaintiff and Defendant has formed because "DOC guidelines" state that "auction bids are legally binding, and can only be terminated via mutual agreement".
2. As this court has previously ruled in Boomsides and Pepecuu v. Lucaa7377 [2025] FCR 10, the DOC's guidelines are not, by their mere fact of being guidelines, binding between private citizens.
3. As is clearly visible in P-001, the Plaintiff's auction post also made no mention of any guidelines that applied to this particular auction, nor was any warning given ahead of posting in the thread, nor are the guidelines available somewhere they can't easily be missed or ignored.
4. The only way by which a contract could have been formed is through the procedure set out in Section 4 of the Contracts Act. The Plaintiff, however, does not allege this.
5. For the avoidance of doubt, and although Plaintiff does not claim this, the Defendant expressly denies that there was ever any intent to create legal relations or to enter into a binding contract with the Plaintiff. This can clearly be construed from the fact that the Defendant deleted his bid within the same minute of posting it, which is visible in P-002 and P-003. The Defendant also made efforts to clearly distance himself from the posted message, thereby causing the Plaintiff and his auction no damage, and giving the Plaintiff no reasonable basis to rely on the mistaken and withdrawn bid as a genuine offer.
6. In light of this, even if the Court were to consider the question of intent, the Defendant’s conduct demonstrates a lack of any serious intention to be bound.
7. Therefore, no contract could have arisen in fact or law as alleged by Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff has no valid Claim for Relief.

II. Lack of Standing
8. Even if the Plaintiff’s allegations were accepted as true, the complaint fails to demonstrate any recoverable damages. The Plaintiff seeks as “compensatory damages” the value of the Defendant’s withdrawn bid, despite having never delivered, transferred, or otherwise parted with the property he was auctioning.
9. Without performance, loss, or detrimental reliance, there can be no compensable harm, and thus no basis for Relief. In order for a Plaintiff to pursue a case, they must show to the court that they suffered some injury, see Rule 2.1 of the Court Rules and Procedures.
10. Even assuming, arguendo, that a binding contract had somehow been formed, the Plaintiff would still not be entitled to the Relief sought. Contract law provides compensation only for actual, proven loss, not hypothetical or speculative damages. The Plaintiff neither delivered the property nor suffered any diminution in value as a result of the Defendant’s brief and withdrawn bid.
11. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s claimed “damages” amount to a windfall, not compensation for a genuine injury. Such Relief is contrary to both established precedent and the fundamental purpose of compensatory damages, which is to restore loss, not to punish or enrich. Consequently, no Punitive Damages or Legal Fees can be awarded either.
12. Plaintiff also lacks Standing to seek an injunction prohibiting Defendant from participating in any auctions for 14 days. Such a request is wholly unsupported by any rule or statute, and the Plaintiff has not shown any personal or particularized harm that would entitle him to this extraordinary form of Relief.
13. The complaint therefore fails not only to state a cause of action but also to articulate any basis upon which the Court could grant the Relief requested.

III. Relief sought
14. Considering that the Plaintiff has no standing to pursue this case and has failed to state any claim upon which Relief can be granted, the Defendant respectfully requests that this Honorable Court:

a. Dismiss the complaint with prejudice;​

b. Deny all Relief sought by the Plaintiff; and​

c. Award Defendant's Counsel Legal Fees incurred in the preparation and defense of this action, amounting to 30% of the case value, an amount of R$29,250, per Section 9 of the Legal Damages Act.​

Respectfully filed,
Vennefly (MZLD Law)

 

[Vennefly]

Answer to Complaint

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

DeltaruneTMRW (pro se)
Plaintiff

v.

Culls (represented by MZLD Law)
Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
1. Defendant AFFIRMS this.
2. Defendant PARTIALLY DENIES this, as it is a matter of law whether or not Defendant's message constituted a valid bid, not a matter of fact. Defendant, however, AFFIRMS that he posted a message reading "67,500" in the auction thread, which he then deleted within the same minute of posting.
3. Defendant DENIES this, as Defendant is of the opinion he never "won" the auction.
4. Defendant NEITHER AFFIRMS, NOR DENIES this, as, in the opinion of Defendant, it lacks relevance to the case at hand.

II. DEFENCES
Formation of a contract through DOC guidelines
1. The Plaintiff's complaint rests entirely upon the assertion that a contract between Plaintiff and Defendant has formed because "DOC guidelines" state that "auction bids are legally binding, and can only be terminated via mutual agreement".
2. As this court has previously ruled in Boomsides and Pepecuu v. Lucaa7377 [2025] FCR 10, the DOC's guidelines are not, by their mere fact of being guidelines, binding between private citizens.
3. As is clearly visible in P-001, the Plaintiff's auction post also made no mention of any guidelines that applied to this particular auction, nor was any warning given ahead of posting in the thread, nor are the guidelines available somewhere they can't easily be missed or ignored.
4. Accordingly, a contract could not have formed in the manner alleged by the Plaintiff. The Defendant therefore denies that any enforceable agreement existed between the parties, and asserts that the Plaintiff’s allegations, even if accepted as true, fail to state a valid claim for relief.

Formation of a contract through the Contracts Act
5. Although the Plaintiff does not allege this, the Defendant will briefly address whether a contract could have been formed under Section 4 of the Contracts Act.
6. In order for a contract to be formed through these means, the following is required:

a. An Offer;​

b. Acceptance;​

c. Consideration;​

d. Intent; and​

e. Capacity.​

7. The Plaintiff has not alleged, nor proven, that any of these requisite conditions for a contract to be formed have been met.
8. Defendant will however, expressly deny that there was ever any intent to create legal relations or to enter into a binding contract with the Plaintiff. This can clearly be construed from the fact that the Defendant deleted his bid within the same minute of posting it, which is visible in P-002 and P-003, thereby withdrawing his bid. No clearly posted rule ever prevented Defendant from withdrawing his bid.
9. The Defendant also made efforts to clearly distance himself from the posted message, thereby causing the Plaintiff and his auction no damage, and giving the Plaintiff no reasonable basis to rely on the mistaken and withdrawn bid as a genuine offer. The Defendant’s conduct demonstrates a lack of any serious intention to be bound.
10. Therefore, no contract could have been established based on Section 4 of the Contracts Act, either, and the Plaintiff continues to have no valid Claim for Relief.

On Compensatory Damages
11. If this Honourable Court, however, determines that a contract has arisen out of the facts and law applicable to this case, the Defence respectfully challenges the Relief sought by Plaintiff.
12. The Plaintiff seeks as “compensatory damages” the value of the Defendant’s withdrawn bid, despite having never delivered, transferred, or otherwise parted with the property he was auctioning (D-001).
13. As Section 4(1)(a) of the Legal Damages Act defines it, Compensatory Damages are:

the damages awarded to a person as compensation; security or protection against a loss or other financial burden; or the restoration of something lost or stolen to its proper owner.

14. Section 4(2)(a) of the Legal Damages Act further states:

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.

15. Therefore, even assuming, arguendo, that a binding contract had somehow been formed, the Plaintiff would still not be entitled to the Compensatory Damages sought. The law provides compensation only for actual, proven loss, not hypothetical or speculative damages. The Plaintiff neither delivered the property nor suffered any diminution in value as a result of the Defendant’s brief and withdrawn bid.
16. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s claimed “damages” amount to a windfall, not compensation for a genuine injury. Such Relief is contrary to both established precedent and the fundamental purpose of Compensatory Damages, which is to restore loss, not to punish or enrich.
17. The Defendant therefore respectfully asks this Honourable Court to, even in the unlikely event that a contract were found to exist, deny the Plaintiff’s claim for Compensatory Damages in its entirety, as no actual loss or injury has been demonstrated.
18. In the further alternative, should this Honourable Court determine that the Plaintiff is entitled to Compensatory Damages, the Defence submits that such damages must be strictly limited to the actual loss suffered by the Plaintiff, if any, and not the full amount of the Defendant’s withdrawn bid. The purpose of compensatory damages is to restore the injured party to their pre-contractual position, not to grant an unearned windfall or punitive award.

On Punitive Damages
19. Section 5(2)(a) of the Legal Damages act states:

Punitive damages will not be awarded unless they are either authorized by statute or unless the conduct of the other party in causing the party’s harm is outrageous.

20. Plaintiff has requested to be awarded Punitive Damages. However, Plaintiff has failed to allege or prove that Defendant's conduct was, in fact, outrageous.
21. Defendant will, however, expressly deny that his conduct was outrageous. As the Supreme Court held in Lightiago v. FuriousPaladin [2023] SCR 20, conduct is "outrageous" when it is "completely indecent, totally atrocious, and fully intolerable in a civilized community".
22. Even if this Honourable Court determines that a contract had been formed, and even if this Honourable Court grants Plaintiff Compensatory Damages, Defendant's conduct is clearly not an example of "completely indecent, totally atrocious and fully intolerable" behaviour.
23. Instead, Defendant argues that he made a simple mistake, accidentally sending a bid message in an Auction thread for a property he never intended to bid on or acquire. It is a mistake that any reasonable individual could make, and in fact is regularly made (although often with lesser consequences).
24. Therefore, Defendant respectfully asks this Honourable Court to deny the Plaintiff's claim for Punitive Damages.

On Injunctive Relief
25. Plaintiff also requests this Honourable Court to issue an injunction prohibiting Defendant from participating in any auction for 14 days.
26. Plaintiff, however, completely lacks Standing to seek such an injunction. Such a request is wholly unsupported by any rule or statute, and the Plaintiff has not shown any personal or particularized harm that would entitle him to this extraordinary form of Relief.
27. Defendant therefore asks this Honourable Court to deny such injunctive relief the Plaintiff has requested.

Conclusion
28. Considering all that has been discussed above, the Defendant respectfully requests that this Honourable Court:

a. Dismiss the Complaint with prejudice;​

b. Deny all Relief sought by the Plaintiff; and​

c. Award Defendant's Counsel Legal Fees incurred in the preparation and defence of this action, amounting to 30% of the case value, being an amount of R$29,250, pursuant to Section 9 of the Legal Damages Act.​

III. EVIDENCE

Spoiler: D-001

IV. DECLARATION AND SIGNATURE
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 23rd day of October 2025

Respectfully filed
Vennefly (MZLD Law)

 

[DeltaruneTMRW]

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO DISMISS - LACK OF CLAIM (Rule 5.5) & LACK OF STANDING (Rule 5.12)

Your Honor,

The defence moves that the complaint in this case be dismissed with prejudice, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:

I. Lack of Claim
1. The Plaintiff's complaint rests entirely upon the assertion that a contract between Plaintiff and Defendant has formed because "DOC guidelines" state that "auction bids are legally binding, and can only be terminated via mutual agreement".
2. As this court has previously ruled in Boomsides and Pepecuu v. Lucaa7377 [2025] FCR 10, the DOC's guidelines are not, by their mere fact of being guidelines, binding between private citizens.
3. As is clearly visible in P-001, the Plaintiff's auction post also made no mention of any guidelines that applied to this particular auction, nor was any warning given ahead of posting in the thread, nor are the guidelines available somewhere they can't easily be missed or ignored.
4. The only way by which a contract could have been formed is through the procedure set out in Section 4 of the Contracts Act. The Plaintiff, however, does not allege this.
5. For the avoidance of doubt, and although Plaintiff does not claim this, the Defendant expressly denies that there was ever any intent to create legal relations or to enter into a binding contract with the Plaintiff. This can clearly be construed from the fact that the Defendant deleted his bid within the same minute of posting it, which is visible in P-002 and P-003. The Defendant also made efforts to clearly distance himself from the posted message, thereby causing the Plaintiff and his auction no damage, and giving the Plaintiff no reasonable basis to rely on the mistaken and withdrawn bid as a genuine offer.
6. In light of this, even if the Court were to consider the question of intent, the Defendant’s conduct demonstrates a lack of any serious intention to be bound.
7. Therefore, no contract could have arisen in fact or law as alleged by Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff has no valid Claim for Relief.

II. Lack of Standing
8. Even if the Plaintiff’s allegations were accepted as true, the complaint fails to demonstrate any recoverable damages. The Plaintiff seeks as “compensatory damages” the value of the Defendant’s withdrawn bid, despite having never delivered, transferred, or otherwise parted with the property he was auctioning.
9. Without performance, loss, or detrimental reliance, there can be no compensable harm, and thus no basis for Relief. In order for a Plaintiff to pursue a case, they must show to the court that they suffered some injury, see Rule 2.1 of the Court Rules and Procedures.
10. Even assuming, arguendo, that a binding contract had somehow been formed, the Plaintiff would still not be entitled to the Relief sought. Contract law provides compensation only for actual, proven loss, not hypothetical or speculative damages. The Plaintiff neither delivered the property nor suffered any diminution in value as a result of the Defendant’s brief and withdrawn bid.
11. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s claimed “damages” amount to a windfall, not compensation for a genuine injury. Such Relief is contrary to both established precedent and the fundamental purpose of compensatory damages, which is to restore loss, not to punish or enrich. Consequently, no Punitive Damages or Legal Fees can be awarded either.
12. Plaintiff also lacks Standing to seek an injunction prohibiting Defendant from participating in any auctions for 14 days. Such a request is wholly unsupported by any rule or statute, and the Plaintiff has not shown any personal or particularized harm that would entitle him to this extraordinary form of Relief.
13. The complaint therefore fails not only to state a cause of action but also to articulate any basis upon which the Court could grant the Relief requested.

III. Relief sought
14. Considering that the Plaintiff has no standing to pursue this case and has failed to state any claim upon which Relief can be granted, the Defendant respectfully requests that this Honorable Court:

a. Dismiss the complaint with prejudice;​

b. Deny all Relief sought by the Plaintiff; and​

c. Award Defendant's Counsel Legal Fees incurred in the preparation and defense of this action, amounting to 30% of the case value, an amount of R$29,250, per Section 9 of the Legal Damages Act.​

Respectfully filed,
Vennefly (MZLD Law)

The court ruled in Ansgard_Ist v. MelisaMinecrft74 [2022] FCR 11 that winning bids do qualify, and Boomsides and Pepecuu v. Lucaa7377 [2025] FCR 10 acknowledges this, a detail the defense has conveniently omitted.
At any rate, any comparisons made between Boomsides and this case are shaky at best. Per the court's verdict,

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.

The court in Boomsides specifically outlines in-process bids as insufficient to prove intent. In this case, the bid was finalized, as was acknowledged by the defendant (see P-003). If an in-process bid is insufficient to prove intent, then logic and precedent both dictate that a winning bid is.

For the avoidance of doubt, and although Plaintiff does not claim this, the Defendant expressly denies that there was ever any intent to create legal relations or to enter into a binding contract with the Plaintiff. This can clearly be construed from the fact that the Defendant deleted his bid within the same minute of posting it, which is visible in P-002 and P-003.

This is, frankly, an inane assertion. Intent was demonstrated when the defendant placed the bid, and per Ansgard_Ist, affirmed when the 24 hour period lapsed and that bid won. If the defendant never had any intention to purchase the property, he shouldn't have placed the bid. Additionally, prior communication between the defendant and the plaintiff indicated that the defendant did, in fact, intend to purchase s026. (See the attached P-006).

Without performance, loss, or detrimental reliance, there can be no compensable harm, and thus no basis for Relief.

In refusing to pay his bid, the defendant has, effectively, encumbered s026 indefinitely: How could the plaintiff possibly sell the plot, or relist it for auction, when she is still contractually obligated to sell it to the defendant? The plaintiff still intends to hold up their end of the deal, she only asks the defendant do the same.

Plaintiff also lacks Standing to seek an injunction prohibiting Defendant from participating in any auctions for 14 days. Such a request is wholly unsupported by any rule or statute, and the Plaintiff has not shown any personal or particularized harm that would entitle him to this extraordinary form of Relief.

This is correct: the plaintiff was, at the time of filing, under the understanding that she had to seek such an injunction per DOC guidelines. However, since the initial filing, the DOC has already sanctioned the defendant independent of the Court or of the plaintiff's actions. In light of this, the plaintiff respectfully requests permission from the court to strike item 4 of the initial filing's prayer for relief (4. The court to issue an injunction prohibiting the defendant from participating in future auctions for 14 days).

Spoiler: P-006

The following is a transcript of a conversation that happened between the plaintiff and the defendant, on October 16, 2025, a day before the initial auction listing was made.

Prior to the defendant visiting the plot

[18:24:46] [Render thread/INFO]: [CHAT] G | Barrister DeltaruneTMRW » culls buy my shitty skyscraper
[18:24:51] [Render thread/INFO]: [CHAT] G | Barrister DeltaruneTMRW » it's not that shitty
[18:24:54] [Render thread/INFO]: [CHAT] G | State Prosecutor Culls » sure
[18:24:58] [Render thread/INFO]: [CHAT] G | Barrister DeltaruneTMRW » it's just got regions in it i don't want to deal with
[18:25:14] [Render thread/INFO]: [CHAT] G | Barrister DeltaruneTMRW » s026 culls
[18:25:16] [Render thread/INFO]: [CHAT] G | State Prosecutor Culls » k
[18:25:23] [Render thread/INFO]: [CHAT] G | Barrister DeltaruneTMRW » i got it priced at 85k but i'm open to offers

During the defendant's visit to the plot, before the plaintiff arrived
[18:26:35] [Render thread/INFO]: [CHAT] G | State Prosecutor Culls » UM
[18:26:41] [Render thread/INFO]: [CHAT] G | State Prosecutor Culls » this is incredible
[18:27:00] [Render thread/INFO]: [CHAT] G | Barrister DeltaruneTMRW » lmao damn
[18:27:05] [Render thread/INFO]: [CHAT] G | Barrister DeltaruneTMRW » that bad Culls?
[18:27:15] [Render thread/INFO]: [CHAT] G | State Prosecutor Culls » wait nvm it is good
[18:27:23] [Render thread/INFO]: [CHAT] G | Barrister DeltaruneTMRW » it's got a bunch of regions in it you would have to clear out
[18:27:28] [Render thread/INFO]: [CHAT] G | State Prosecutor Culls » na
[18:27:37] [Render thread/INFO]: [CHAT] G | State Prosecutor Culls » i make apartments and terrorise staff
[18:27:42] [Render thread/INFO]: [CHAT] G | State Prosecutor Culls » with 50 regions
[18:27:54] [Render thread/INFO]: [CHAT] G | Barrister DeltaruneTMRW » i take it you're interested then?
[18:27:58] [Render thread/INFO]: [CHAT] G | State Prosecutor Culls » yes
[18:28:01] [Render thread/INFO]: [CHAT] G | State Prosecutor Culls » obs
[18:28:01] [Render thread/INFO]: [CHAT] G | Barrister DeltaruneTMRW » dope
[18:28:12] [Render thread/INFO]: [CHAT] G | State Prosecutor Culls » give me a tour
[18:28:14] [Render thread/INFO]: [CHAT] G | State Prosecutor Culls » lol
[18:28:20] [Render thread/INFO]: [CHAT] G | Barrister DeltaruneTMRW » i'm at da gas station right now
[18:28:25] [Render thread/INFO]: [CHAT] G | Barrister DeltaruneTMRW » i just got slapped in the face by a small man
[18:28:26] [Render thread/INFO]: [CHAT] G | State Prosecutor Culls » ok after then?
[18:28:27] [Render thread/INFO]: [CHAT] G | Barrister DeltaruneTMRW » sure

[18:30:21] [Render thread/INFO]: [CHAT] G | State Prosecutor Culls » delta this looks nice wdym
[18:30:21] [Render thread/INFO]: [CHAT] G | Barrister DeltaruneTMRW » culls are you gonna offer on it
[18:30:25] [Render thread/INFO]: [CHAT] G | State Prosecutor Culls » ofc
[18:31:06] [Render thread/INFO]: [CHAT] G | State Prosecutor Culls » how much you want, talk in dms

After the plaintiff arrived at the plot

[18:34:15] [Render thread/INFO]: [CHAT] L | Barrister DeltaruneTMRW » ok so this is the lobby
[18:34:32] [Render thread/INFO]: [CHAT] L | Barrister DeltaruneTMRW » most of these barrels are unlocked and as i found them
[18:34:37] [Render thread/INFO]: [CHAT] L | Barrister DeltaruneTMRW » except for these 2 apparently
[18:34:38] [Render thread/INFO]: [CHAT] L | State Prosecutor Culls » ok..
[18:34:53] [Render thread/INFO]: [CHAT] L | Barrister DeltaruneTMRW » there's some shops selling various beverages here
[18:35:02] [Render thread/INFO]: [CHAT] L | Barrister DeltaruneTMRW » + shop stalls for rent
[18:35:11] [Render thread/INFO]: [CHAT] L | State Prosecutor Culls » nice
[18:35:16] [Render thread/INFO]: [CHAT] L | Barrister DeltaruneTMRW » and then there's like 10 floors of straight hotel rooms
[18:35:28] [Render thread/INFO]: [CHAT] L | State Prosecutor Culls » oo
[18:35:31] [Render thread/INFO]: [CHAT] L | State Prosecutor Culls » nice
[18:35:42] [Render thread/INFO]: [CHAT] L | Barrister DeltaruneTMRW » there's soome weird configuration of barrels on the roof but you could get that taken down by staff
[18:35:51] [Render thread/INFO]: [CHAT] L | Barrister DeltaruneTMRW » yeah that's pretty much it lol
[18:35:58] [Render thread/INFO]: [CHAT] L | Barrister DeltaruneTMRW » only a few people actually live here
[18:36:01] [Render thread/INFO]: [CHAT] L | Barrister DeltaruneTMRW » so far, at least
[18:36:46] [Render thread/INFO]: [CHAT] L | State Prosecutor Culls » I could use this
[18:36:56] [Render thread/INFO]: [CHAT] L | State Prosecutor Culls » maybe eve for a university
[18:37:10] [Render thread/INFO]: [CHAT] L | Barrister DeltaruneTMRW » now as i said before i'm open to offers, i got it for free so i can't be too picky
[18:37:52] [Render thread/INFO]: [CHAT] L | State Prosecutor Culls » and its for a school XD
[18:38:36] [Render thread/INFO]: [CHAT] L | Barrister DeltaruneTMRW » i'm gonna grow a shitload of sugarcane on the ranch plot for my upcoming firework factory
[18:38:42] [Render thread/INFO]: [CHAT] L | State Prosecutor Culls » cool
[18:38:51] [Render thread/INFO]: [CHAT] L | Barrister DeltaruneTMRW » anyways
[18:38:57] [Render thread/INFO]: [CHAT] L | State Prosecutor Culls » well I could use this a lot
[18:39:03] [Render thread/INFO]: [CHAT] L | State Prosecutor Culls » tear it out
[18:39:07] [Render thread/INFO]: [CHAT] L | State Prosecutor Culls » make new rooms
[18:39:36] [Render thread/INFO]: [CHAT] L | Barrister DeltaruneTMRW » what are you prepared to offer for it, then?
[18:39:49] [Render thread/INFO]: [CHAT] L | State Prosecutor Culls » what do you wish?
[18:39:57] [Render thread/INFO]: [CHAT] L | Barrister DeltaruneTMRW » well i had it priced at about 85k, but i'm not firm on that
[18:40:11] [Render thread/INFO]: [CHAT] L | Barrister DeltaruneTMRW » pre built s plots seem to be going for around the 75k range
[18:40:18] [Render thread/INFO]: [CHAT] L | State Prosecutor Culls » let me see
[18:40:29] [Render thread/INFO]: [CHAT] L | Barrister DeltaruneTMRW » based on other marketplace transactions in the past few years, at least
[18:40:52] [Render thread/INFO]: [CHAT] L | State Prosecutor Culls » yeap
[18:41:04] [Render thread/INFO]: [CHAT] L | State Prosecutor Culls » i love the building
[18:41:24] [Render thread/INFO]: [CHAT] L | Barrister DeltaruneTMRW » it's definitely unique for its surroundings
[18:41:28] [Render thread/INFO]: [CHAT] L | Barrister DeltaruneTMRW » not many straight wood buildings here
[18:41:40] [Render thread/INFO]: [CHAT] L | State Prosecutor Culls » true
[18:41:54] [Render thread/INFO]: [CHAT] L | State Prosecutor Culls » wanna talk in dms
[18:41:56] [Render thread/INFO]: [CHAT] L | Barrister DeltaruneTMRW » sure
[18:41:58] [Render thread/INFO]: [CHAT] L | Barrister DeltaruneTMRW » bigcrazyofficial
[18:42:03] [Render thread/INFO]: [CHAT] L | State Prosecutor Culls » just dm me
[18:42:13] [Render thread/INFO]: [CHAT] L | State Prosecutor Culls » see ya later

 

[Vennefly]

The court ruled in Ansgard_Ist v. MelisaMinecrft74 [2022] FCR 11 that winning bids do qualify, and Boomsides and Pepecuu v. Lucaa7377 [2025] FCR 10 acknowledges this, a detail the defense has conveniently omitted.
At any rate, any comparisons made between Boomsides and this case are shaky at best. Per the court's verdict,



The court in Boomsides specifically outlines in-process bids as insufficient to prove intent. In this case, the bid was finalized, as was acknowledged by the defendant (see P-003). If an in-process bid is insufficient to prove intent, then logic and precedent both dictate that a winning bid is.



This is, frankly, an inane assertion. Intent was demonstrated when the defendant placed the bid, and per Ansgard_Ist, affirmed when the 24 hour period lapsed and that bid won. If the defendant never had any intention to purchase the property, he shouldn't have placed the bid. Additionally, prior communication between the defendant and the plaintiff indicated that the defendant did, in fact, intend to purchase s026. (See the attached P-006).



In refusing to pay his bid, the defendant has, effectively, encumbered s026 indefinitely: How could the plaintiff possibly sell the plot, or relist it for auction, when she is still contractually obligated to sell it to the defendant? The plaintiff still intends to hold up their end of the deal, she only asks the defendant do the same.



This is correct: the plaintiff was, at the time of filing, under the understanding that she had to seek such an injunction per DOC guidelines. However, since the initial filing, the DOC has already sanctioned the defendant independent of the Court or of the plaintiff's actions. In light of this, the plaintiff respectfully requests permission from the court to strike item 4 of the initial filing's prayer for relief (4. The court to issue an injunction prohibiting the defendant from participating in future auctions for 14 days).

Spoiler: P-006

The following is a transcript of a conversation that happened between the plaintiff and the defendant, on October 16, 2025, a day before the initial auction listing was made.

Objection

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

Your Honour,

The Plaintiff did not have the leave of this Honourable Court to respond to my motion. Plaintiff has therefore spoken out of turn, and Defendant requests that this response be stricken and Plaintiff be held in Contempt of Court.

Respectfully filed,
Vennefly (MZLD Law)

 

[Vennefly]

(See the attached P-006).

Objection

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

Your Honour,

The Plaintiff has introduced new evidence (P-006) in response to a Motion to Dismiss. This is prohibited, as the purpose of a Motion to Dismiss is to determine whether the Complaint, on its face, states a valid claim for relief and has proper standing, not to litigate factual matters or introduce new evidence.

A Motion to Dismiss is decided solely on the pleadings already before the Court. The introduction of new evidence at this stage constitutes an improper attempt to supplement or amend the Complaint without leave of the Court.

The Defense therefore respectfully requests that P-006 be disregarded in its entirety for the purposes of deciding the Motion to Dismiss, and that the plaintiff be held in Contempt of Court.

Respectfully filed,
Vennefly (MZLD law).

 

[Vennefly]

The plaintiff still intends to hold up their end of the deal, she only asks the defendant do the same.

Objection

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

Your Honour,

In her own sworn Complaint, the Plaintiff has requested not for the Defendant to hold up their end of the deal, but instead she has requested to be awarded Compensatory Damages. By now claiming, in response to a Motion to Dismiss, that the Plaintiff only intends to "hold Defendant to his end of the deal", the Plaintiff intends to prejudice this court against Defendant by contradicting her own sworn statements and misrepresenting the relief originally sought.

Such conduct constitutes a material inconsistency and a deliberate attempt to mislead the Court as to the nature of the Plaintiff’s claim. The Defense therefore objects on the grounds of perjury and bad faith pleading, and respectfully requests that the Court:

1. Strike the Plaintiff's contradictory statements from the record;
2. Disregard any arguments relying on this new and inconsistent position;
3. Hold the Plaintiff in Contempt of Court; and
4. Refer the Plaintiff to the Department of Justice on the charge of Perjury.

Respectfully filed,
Vennefly (MZLD law).