Lawsuit: Pending edwardcul1en v. Devious355 [2026] DCR 173

[edwardcul1en]

Case Filing

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


edwardcul1en,
Plaintiff

v.

Devious355,
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF

Defendant won an Auction held by the Plaintiff for an amount of $3,000, forming a Contract between Plaintiff and Defendant. Defendant subsequently failed to uphold their end of the Agreement by failing to pay the agreed amount. Plaintiff attempted to remedy this Breach through extrajudicial means prior to involving this honorable Court.

I. PARTIES
1. edwardcul1en (Plaintiff)
2. Devious355 (Defendant)

II. FACTS
1. On August 2nd, 2026, Plaintiff posted an auction thread in the #marketplace channel on the DemocracyCraft Discord server (P-001).
2. On the same day, Defendant placed a winning bid of $3,000 on the auction thread by replying "3000" (P-002).
3. 24 hours after the Defendant's bid was placed, Plaintiff replied to confirm that the defendant had the highest bid. Defendant was also given payment and delivery instructions at this time (P-002).
4. Defendant indicated their unwillingness to fulfill the contractual obligations agreed to by bidding in the #marketplace auction thread.
5. Plaintiff opened a Department of Commerce Support ticket to assess legal options, and was advised that the Defendant did not possess the funds necessary to fulfill their contractual obligations (P-004).
6. Defendant was fined $1,000 and banned from the #marketplace channel for a period of seven days by a representative from the Department of Commerce for placing an invalid bid (insufficient funds) (P-005).
7. Defendant's balance lacked the funds necessary to fulfill their contractual obligation to pay Plaintiff $3,000.
8. Plaintiff accepted the highest valid bid for a price of $1,250 (P-006).
9. Plaintiff attempted to settle the difference between the Defendant's bid and the highest valid bid price via Discord direct-message (P-007) and received no response from the Defendant.
10. Plaintiff attempted to settle the difference between the Defendant's bid and the highest valid bid price via in-game mail (P-008) and received no response from the Defendant.
11. Defendant agreed to the Department of Commerce Auction Policy by participating in an auction on the #marketplace channel on Discord.
12. Defendant's bid on an auction thread in the #marketplace channel constitutes a legally enforceable contract.
13. Defendant had reached more than six hours of playtime before entering into this agreement.
14. Defendant has participated in other auctions after being contacted by the Plaintiff and notified of their contractual obligations (P-009, P-010, P-011).
15. Defendant has breached the seven day ban from participating in Marketplace auctions given by the Department of Commerce by posting in multiple marketplace threads (P-009, P-010, P-011).

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. Breach of Contract
Through bidding on Plaintiff's auction winning the auction, a Contract was formed between Plaintiff and Defendant.
According to Section 4(2) of the Contracts Act, the formation of a Contract requires:

1. An Offer, in this case the Defendant offered $3,000 in exchange for Plaintiff's yellow tractor by posting the message reading "3000" to the Auction thread (P-002).
2. Acceptance, the Plaintiff accepted Defendant's offer by announcing them as the winner of the Auction (P-002).
3. Consideration, it is clear that there is an exchange of value between parties, consisting of the exchange of a yellow tractor for money.
4. Intent, the actions of both parties in the auction thread (P-001 and P-002) clearly demonstrate the intent of both parties to come to an exchange of the yellow tractor for an amount of $3,000.
5. Capacity, each Party had the Capacity to enter into such a Contract. Both parties had reached more than 6 hours of playtime prior to engaging in this contract.

By not paying Plaintiff the $3,000 he is owed, Defendant failed to fulfill their Contractual Obligations and thereby caused a Breach of Contract pursuant Section 7(1) of the Contracts Act. Under paragraph (a) of this subsection, specific performance is determined to be one of the available remedies for a Breach of Contract.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. $1,750 in Compensatory Damages for the difference between the bid made by the Defendant and the final winning bid.
2. $10,000 in Punitive Damages for the emotional damages and stress caused by the Defendant's failure to pay the bid, and subsequent failure to solve this dispute extrajudicially.
3. $3,000 or 30% of the case value, whichever is higher, in Legal Fees
4. A Court Order ordering the Department of Homeland Security to seize and liquidate any Property owned by Defendant up to the amount awarded by this Court in order to execute this Court's verdict. This includes, in no particular order:

a. Cash held in balance;​

b. Plots;​

c. The contents of Defendant's Inventory, Enderchest and Supporter Chest;​

d. Cash held in any Financial Institution within Redmont.​

EVIDENCE

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

Spoiler: P-011

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 5th day of August 2026.

 

[CreeperTD]

Writ of Summons

@Devious355 is required to appear before the District Court in the case of edwardcul1en v. Devious355 [2026] DCR 173.

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.

 

[Im_Wolffyy]

Your Honor,


I hereby enter my appearance on behalf of Defendant Devious355 in this matter. Devious355 has retained me to serve as his legal counsel.

Defendant is present before the Court and will respond to the Complaint within the time frame ordered by the Court.

DATED: This 24th day of September, 2026.

Spoiler: Proof of Representation

 

[CreeperTD]

Your Honor,


I hereby enter my appearance on behalf of Defendant Devious355 in this matter. Devious355 has retained me to serve as his legal counsel.

Defendant is present before the Court and will respond to the Complaint within the time frame ordered by the Court.

DATED: This 24th day of September, 2026.

Spoiler: Proof of Representation

View attachment 100036

Please present your answer to complaint within 48 hours.

 

[Im_Wolffyy]

Answer to Complaint

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

ANSWER TO COMPLAINT


edwardcul1en
Plaintiff

v.

Devious355
Defendant


I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

1. AFFIRMS that on August 2nd, 2026, Plaintiff posted an auction thread in the #marketplace channel on the DemocracyCraft Discord server (P-001).

2. AFFIRMS that Defendant placed a bid of $3,000 on the auction thread by replying "3000" (P-002). DENIES that Defendant's placed a valid winning bid.

3. AFFIRMS that 24 hours after Defendant's bid was placed, Plaintiff replied to confirm that Defendant had the highest bid. AFFIRMS that Defendant was also given payment and delivery instructions at this time (P-002). DENIES that there was a winning-bid contract between Plaintiff and Defendant.

4. AFFIRMS that Defendant indicated an unwillingness to complete the $3,000 transaction. DENIES that Defendant failed to perform an obligation under a valid and enforceable contract.

5. AFFIRMS that Plaintiff opened a Department of Commerce support ticket and was advised that Defendant did not possess sufficient funds to complete the $3,000 transaction (P-004).

6. AFFIRMS that Defendant was fined $1,000 and banned from the #marketplace channel for a period of seven days by a representative of the Department of Commerce for placing an invalid bid due to insufficient funds (P-005).

7. AFFIRMS that Defendant's balance lacked the funds necessary to complete the $3,000 bid. DENIES that Defendant was bound by a valid winning-bid contract.

8. AFFIRMS that Plaintiff accepted the highest valid bid for a price of $1,250 (P-006).

9. DOES NOT CONTEST that Plaintiff contacted Defendant by Discord direct message regarding the auction dispute and received no response (P-007). DENIES that Defendant's failure to respond establishes contractual liability or an entitlement to punitive damages.

10. DOES NOT CONTEST that Plaintiff contacted Defendant through in-game mail regarding the auction dispute and received no response (P-008). DENIES that Defendant's failure to respond establishes contractual liability or an entitlement to punitive damages.

11. AFFIRMS that Defendant's participation in the auction was governed by the Department of Commerce Auction Policy. DENIES that participation in the auction, by itself, established a valid and enforceable contract between Plaintiff and Defendant.

12. DENIES that Defendant's bid constituted a valid and legally enforceable winning-bid contract.

13. AFFIRMS that Defendant had reached more than six hours of playtime before submitting the bid. DENIES that this fact alone establishes the existence of the enforceable agreement.

14. DOES NOT CONTEST that Defendant participated in other auctions after being contacted by Plaintiff (P-009, P-010, P-011). DENIES that this conduct proves the existence of the alleged $3,000 contract or establishes liability to Plaintiff in this matter.

15. DOES NOT CONTEST that Defendant posted in marketplace threads during the Department of Commerce's seven-day restriction (P-009, P-010, P-011). DENIES that this separate matter establishes breach of the auction process between Plaintiff and Defendant.


II. DEFENCES

1. DEFENDANT NEVER HELD A VALID WINNING BID

Plaintiff's claim depends upon Defendant having possessed the valid winning bid. However, Defendant's $3,000 bid was invalid under the governing Auction Policy because Defendant lacked sufficient funds.

The Department of Commerce did not create this invalidity after the auction concluded. Instead, its determination confirmed that Defendant's bid failed to meet the governing requirements when it was submitted.

The Department therefore classified the $3,000 bid as invalid and recognized the $1,250 bid as the highest valid bid. Plaintiff subsequently accepted that valid bid.

In smokeyybunnyyy v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2024] FCR 103, the Court held that invalid auction bids should be annulled and the auction returned to its last legitimate position.

Defendant therefore never possessed the valid winning bid necessary to support the winning-bid contract alleged by Plaintiff.


2. NO ENFORCEABLE CONTRACT WAS FORMED UNDER THE CONTRACTS ACT

Plaintiff relies upon Section 4 of the Contracts Act, arguing that offer, acceptance, consideration, intent, and capacity existed.

However, the existence of a bid does not automatically establish the enforceable auction contract alleged by Plaintiff. The alleged offer was an invalid auction bid, and Defendant never became the valid winning bidder under the governing auction process.

In Boomsides and Pepecuu v. Lucaa7377 [2025] FCR 10, the Court distinguished ordinary auction bids from completed winning bids capable of producing enforceable contractual obligations.

Because Defendant's bid was invalid from the beginning and another bidder was ultimately recognized as the highest valid bidder, Plaintiff has not established the valid winning-bid contract required for a breach-of-contract claim.


3. THE AUCTION POLICY MUST BE READ AS A WHOLE

Plaintiff expressly relies upon the Department of Commerce Auction Policy as establishing the legal effect of Defendant's bid.

The Policy cannot be selectively interpreted.

While Plaintiff relies upon provisions stating that auction bids are binding, the same Policy establishes rules governing insufficient funds, invalid bids, forfeiture, and recognition of the next-highest valid bidder.

Those provisions were applied in this case. Defendant's bid was declared invalid and the $1,250 bid became the highest valid bid.

Plaintiff cannot treat Defendant's bid as invalid when determining the lawful winner of the auction, yet simultaneously treat that same bid as the valid winning bid when seeking contractual damages.


4. PUNITIVE DAMAGES ARE NOT WARRANTED

Plaintiff requests $10,000 in punitive damages for emotional stress, failure to pay, and failure to resolve the dispute extrajudicially.

Under Part III of the Redmont Civil Code Act, punitive damages require qualifying outrageous conduct and are intended to punish such conduct rather than compensate ordinary frustration or stress.

Plaintiff has not demonstrated that Defendant entered the auction with the purpose of harming Plaintiff, defrauding Plaintiff, or otherwise engaging in conduct sufficiently outrageous to warrant $10,000 in punitive damages.

A disputed auction transaction and Defendant's failure to respond to settlement demands do not, without further evidence, establish the misconduct necessary for punitive damages.

Further, Defendant's later alleged violations of a Department of Commerce marketplace restriction constitute a separate administrative matter and did not cause the contractual damages alleged by Plaintiff.


5. THE REQUESTED ASSET SEIZURE IS PREMATURE

Plaintiff requests an order authorizing the Department of Homeland Security to seize and liquidate Defendant's money, plots, inventory, ender chest, supporter chest, and financial accounts.

No monetary judgment has yet been entered against Defendant.

Any enforcement or seizure of property must therefore occur through the lawful post-judgment enforcement procedures provided by the Redmont Civil Code Act rather than through a blanket pre-judgment seizure request.


III. REQUEST FOR RELIEF

Defendant respectfully requests that this Court:

1. Enter judgment in favor of Defendant because Plaintiff has failed to establish breach of a valid and enforceable winning-bid contract;

2. Deny Plaintiff's request for $10,000 in punitive damages;

3. Deny Plaintiff's premature request for blanket seizure and liquidation of Defendant's property;

4. Award Defendant’s counsel legal fees pursuant to Part III §7 of the Redmont Civil Code Act, calculated at 30% of the case value; and

5. Grant any further relief the Court considers just and proper.


IV. EVIDENCE
Defendant relies upon the following evidence already entered into the record by Plaintiff:

P-002: Auction thread showing Defendant’s $3,000 bid and Plaintiff’s announcement concerning the auction.

P-004: Commerce support ticket concerning Defendant’s insufficient funds.

P-005: Department of Commerce determination and punishment for Defendant’s invalid bid due to insufficient funds. Defendant's bid is determined to be Invalid.

P-006: Evidence showing Plaintiff accepted the $1,250 highest valid bid following the invalidation of Defendant’s bid.


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 24th day of September, 2026.

 

[CreeperTD]

Discovery is now open, and will remain open for the next 5 days, starting from this message.

 

[CreeperTD]

Discovery is now open, and will remain open for the next 5 days, starting from this message.

Struck after noticing a deficiency. @Im_Wolffyy, where is your evidence? It has not been attacked to your answer to complaint.

 

[Im_Wolffyy]

Your Honor,
The defense presents no evidence. We can solely rely on the Plaintiff's exhibits for all arguments. If you would like, we can have their evidence duplicated as D-XXX exhibits; however, I decided against it for the simplicity of exhibits in this case.

 

[CreeperTD]

Your Honor,
The defense presents no evidence. We can solely rely on the Plaintiff's exhibits for all arguments. If you would like, we can have their evidence duplicated as D-XXX exhibits; however, I decided against it for the simplicity of exhibits in this case.

Understood, in future note that there is no need for you to list any of the Plaintiff's evidence in your answer to complaint, you need only reference it if you so choose.

Now, discovery shall open for 5 days starting from this message.

 

[Im_Wolffyy]

Brief

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT


DISCOVERY REQUEST AND SUBMISSION OF INTERROGATORIES


edwardcul1en
Plaintiff


v.


Devious355
Defendant


I. REQUEST FOR DISCOVERY


Pursuant to Court Rule 4.7, Defendant respectfully requests the complete and unedited Department of Commerce support ticket referenced in Exhibits P-004 and P-005, including all messages, screenshots, timestamps, and Department determinations concerning the validity or invalidity of Defendant’s $3,000 bid.


II. INTERROGATORIES TO PLAINTIFF


Pursuant to Court Rule 4.8, Defendant submits the following interrogatories to Plaintiff, which Plaintiff must answer truthfully and to the best of their ability:

1. Does Plaintiff contend that Defendant’s $3,000 bid was a valid bid despite the Department of Commerce determining that it was an “invalid bid” due to insufficient funds? If so, please state the basis for that contention.
2. Identify the specific conduct Plaintiff relies upon to support the requested $10,000 in punitive damages.

DATED: This 24th day of September, 2026.