In this case, you have heard about what our client believed, what LazyTitan believed and their ability to work on the plot. We can strip this all away and focus on one simple issue.
Have all the criteria for a valid contract been met for each of the various “mini” contracts that the Plaintiff argues he made with our client? As laid out in Maxterpiece vs Czar Chief, a contract must be offered and accepted.
Since each of the conditions were offered separately, and the ones that were accepted, were accepted separately. each of these terms must be viewed as separate contracts. So therefore we must ensure that each term of the contract provided by dygyee has been accepted.
“That’s fine” is not accepting a contract, it is agreeing that it is reasonable. Accepting would require a promise on the side of the acceptee to abide by the terms. This is merely an acknowledgement that that term is reasonable, and the parties can continue negotiating.
Furthermore, evidence about what our client and LazyTitan thought they agreed to is not pertinent. They are not lawyers, and their understanding of the agreements that they made, or more importantly the lack thereof, is not of concern to this court, only the language in the conversation between the Plaintiff and our client.
Above all, our client was unable to complete the project due to a family members death. This Court should not rule that the server takes priority over real-life.
If this Court errs, and finds that the contract has been accepted, and disregards our clients inability to complete the project, the Plaintiff is still not entitled to full damages.
Since the Plaintiff represented himself, he is not entitled to legal fees. He has clearly not incurred any costs as a part of this lawsuit, as he would have to be charging himself.
Additionally, the Plaintiff has provided no evidence of lost profits or that customers would have used his apartments, not even how much he intended to rent his apartments for.
Finally, the Plaintiff is not entitled to the entirety of his direct damages, since our client completed 1/19th of the work he was paid for, and logic shows that he must keep the payment for that work, otherwise this Court will be creating a legal loophole for employers to not pay their employees for the work they complete.