- Thread Author
- #1
Case Filing
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION
Fletchingrs
Plaintiff
v.
UrbanDesign (Represented by Kiwi_Boi_Gamer)
Defendant
COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:
WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF
"On or about February 26, 2026, I entered into a professional agreement with UrbanDesign to renovate my property at S079. Despite inspecting the site days prior and knowing exactly what the job required, the Defendant sat on the project for three days, performed zero structural work, and then quit using dishonest excuses about 'permissions' and 'complexity.' This wasn't just a change of heart; it was a bad-faith abandonment that cost me time and money. While they returned my deposit, that doesn't fix the days of lost progress or the fact that I now have to pay more for a new builder to fix their mess. I am seeking full compensation for the time wasted and the legal fees I've been forced to incur to hold them accountable."
I. PARTIES
Fletchingrs (Plaintiff) - Legal leaseholder of Plot S079.
UrbanDesign / DaanBanaan5673 (Defendant) - Contractor hired for renovation services.
II. FACTS
On or about February 23, 2026, the Defendant conducted an on-site inspection of Plot S079, explicitly noting the floor height requirements and plot dimensions.
On or about February 25, 2026, the Parties executed a binding Renovation Contract for a total sum of D$21,000.
Between on or about February 25, 2026, and on or about February 28, 2026, the Defendant held active "Member" permissions on the plot but failed to perform any material structural work.
On or about February 28, 2026, the Defendant unilaterally terminated the agreement, claiming the project was "too big"—an excuse directly contradicted by their own prior inspection.
On or about March 1, 2026, the Plaintiff was forced to mitigate damages by securing a new builder (Wayne Kerr) for the same scope of work at a higher cost of D$22,500.
III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
Material Breach of Contract: The Defendant failed to perform the core structural obligations of the agreement (Section 5.9), resulting in a total failure of consideration.
Breach of the Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing: The Defendant utilized dishonest pretexts regarding building permissions to escape a vetted professional obligation.
Estoppel: The Defendant is legally barred from claiming "unforeseen complexity" after having performed a site survey on or about Feb 23.
Liability for Cost of Cover: Under Redmont law, a breaching party is liable for the price difference between the original contract and the replacement contract required to finish the work.
IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
Lost Opportunity Costs: D$6,000.00 (For 3 days of total plot inactivity at D$2,000/day).
Cost of Cover: D$1,500.00 (Price difference between original and replacement contract).
Punitive Damages: D$3,550.00 (For bad-faith conduct and deceptive trade practices).
Legal Fees: D$4,050.00 (Broken down as: D$300 Contract Review, D$750 Discovery, D$1,000 Filing, D$2,000 Trial Representation.
Total Sum Requested: D$15,100.00
Evidence:
Exhibit A: Renovation Contract signed on or about Feb 25, 2026. (Contract added as an attachment.)
Exhibit B: New Master Construction Indenture with Wayne Kerr dated on or about Mar 1, 2026. (Contract added as an attachment
Exhibit C: Discord logs confirming inspection on or about Feb 23, 2026, and termination on or about Feb 28, 2026.
Exhibit D: Incomplete building sections
Witnesses:
Fletchingrs (Plaintiff)
Wayne Kerr (Secondary Contractor - to testify on project feasibility)
By making this submission, I agree that 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 2nd day of March 2026
Attachments
-
Fletchingrs v. UrbanDesign-3.pdf1.5 MB · Views: 5
-
RENOVATION CONTRACT (UrbanDesign and Fletchingrs) (1) (1).pdf1.2 MB · Views: 2
-
image.png144.3 KB · Views: 4 -
image2.png147.2 KB · Views: 3 -
image3.png149.6 KB · Views: 2 -
image4.png141.6 KB · Views: 2 -
image7.png132 KB · Views: 2 -
image8.png146.8 KB · Views: 2 -
image9.png130.5 KB · Views: 2 -
image10.png176.3 KB · Views: 2 -
image5.png138.2 KB · Views: 3 -
image6.png142.1 KB · Views: 3
Last edited: