Lawsuit: Adjourned Galavance v. CRB [2023] FCR 54

Status
Not open for further replies.
Matthew100x

Matthew100x

Citizen
Redmont Bar Assoc.
Supporter
Aventura Resident
Matthew100x
Matthew100x
attorney
Joined
Jul 14, 2020
Messages
506
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


Galavance (Prodigium | Attorneys at Law Representing. Counsel: Matthew100x)
Plaintiff

v.

CRB
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

The plaintiff, Galavance, purchased a loan as a contract under an auction through the defendant. The loan was for $420,000 dollars, of which $250,000 dollars had been paid off. The remaining $170,000 dollars was to be paid over the remaining 12 month term of the loan. The object of the contract under auction, BlogWorldExpo, was expected to pay a minimum of $35,000 dollars per month as terms for his loan, however, he did not do so. Instead the defendant left Redmont under self exile and gave away his properties. After three months of non-payment under the terms of his loan, we believe that the defendant has misrepresented the loan that they sold, we therefore charge this defendant of being in breach of the contract that they made with the plaintiff for misrepresentation.


I. PARTIES
1. Plaintiff, Galavance
2. Defendant, CRB
3. Object of Contract, BlogWorldExpo
3. The Exchange (On Notice for Assets)
4. Discover Bank (On Notice for Assets)
5. Morgan Sheraton & Co (On Notice for Assets)
6. Bank of Reville (On Notice for Assets)

II. FACTS
1. One contract for a loan whose value was $170,000 dollars was offered by the defendant on an auction. (Exhibit A)
2. The payments for the loan was to be $35,000 dollars per month over the course of the next year or until the loan was paid in full for a total of $170,000 dollars. (Exhibit A)
3. The plaintiff purchased the contract for $60,000 dollars (Exhibit B)
4. This loan, establishes a simple unilateral contract agreed to on discord, meets the standard definition of a contract by the standards of The Contract Law Foundation Act.
5. The object of the contract, Blog, proceeded to not make any payments and said that the plaintiff is denied the money. (Exhibit c)
5. The Defendant stated that the plaintiff could collect from the object of the contract on personal liability. (Exhibit C)
6. The object of the contract left the server, sold and/or gave away all of his possessions, and got rid of his cash. (I'm 90% sure there was a goodbye thread, however, all introduction and departure posts have been removed from the website)
7. The plaintiff’s counsel attempted to reach out to the defendant with regards to the contract contents, however, the chairman of the defendant did not have a sufficient answer regarding contracts for an auction. (Exhibit D)

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. Due to the misrepresentation of the contract, the plaintiff suffered a loss of $60,000 dollars on the belief that he would make $170,000 dollars from the contract.
2. Breach of contract made by the object of the loan caused the defendant to misrepresent their statements and caused damages.
3. Per 12.8 of the Foundation of Contract Law, if the misrepresentation turned out to be negligent, the plaintiff has the right to request to terminate the contract and thus make it void.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. For the auction contract between the plaintiff and the defendant be voided.
2. If the contract is voided, for the plaintiff to receive their $60,000 dollars back from the defendant.

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, 2023.
 

Attachments

  • Exhibit A.png
    Exhibit A.png
    94.2 KB · Views: 102
  • Exhibit C.png
    Exhibit C.png
    94.7 KB · Views: 103
  • Exhibit B.png
    Exhibit B.png
    147.5 KB · Views: 103
1686931554790.png

No money for you... until Arsky gets put back in Oakridge.
 
federal-court-png.12082



IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
WRIT OF SUMMONS

The Attorney General is required to appear before the court in the case of Galavance v. CRB. Failure to appear within 48 hours of this summons will result in a default judgment in favor of the plaintiff.

I'd also like to remind both parties to be aware of the Court Rules and Procedures, including the option of an in-game trial should both parties request one.​
 
I hereby charge Geven26 with 2 count of contempt of court for talking out of turn, and order the DOJ to fine/jail them appropriately.

I hereby charge BlogWorldExpo with 1 count of contempt of court for talking out of turn, and order the DOJ to fine/jail them appropriately.
 
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

Galavance
Plaintiff

v.

Commonwealth Reserve Bank (AG Dartanman and Prosecutor Wuutie representing)
Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
1. AFFIRM that one contract for a loan was offered by the defendant on an auction, however DISPUTE that it had any inherent value.
2. AFFIRM that BlogWorldExpo was expected to pay back at least $35,000 per month over the next year or until the loan was paid in full for a total of $170,000.
3. AFFIRM the Plaintiff purchased the contract for $60,000.
4. AFFIRM that this loan qualifies as a contract under the CLF Act.
5. NEITHER AFFIRM NOR DENY that Blog has not made any payments and said the Plaintiff is denied the money (although it seems likely, it is not within our ability to confirm this).
6. AFFIRM that the Defendant stated the Plaintiff could collect from BlogWorldExpo on personal liability.
7. DISPUTE that BlogWorldExpo left the server (Exhibit 1).
8. AFFIRM that the Plaintiff’s counsel reached out to the Defendant and did not receive a sufficient answer, however NOTE this is because since Intercepticon became the CRB Chair, the CRB has not taken part in loans.

II. DEFENSES
1. The contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant stated that the Plaintiff would “receive the right to any further payments made on the $420,000 at 5% for 12 months loan to BlogWorldExpo … of which $250,000 has been paid off already - that the [Plaintiff] shall not receive.”

Despite this, the Plaintiff claims “Breach of contract made by [BlogWorldExpo] caused the Defendant to misrepresent their statements and caused damages.”

This is false, as the contract does not make any claim regarding whether there will be more payments or not. Thus, this contract has no misrepresentation, and is not void.

2. The contract had no inherent value, as no payments were guaranteed.

3. The Claims for Relief laid out by the Plaintiff certainly make the Commonwealth the correct Defendant, however I would urge the Plaintiff to reconsider this lawsuit and sue BlogWorldExpo – who actually disobeyed the law.

EVIDENCE
zoH_SKAN8w3ULzZ7tsuACDAQsJCyNj5wOoWBFAWR696PdPTOM-3giZTXWQ1c14nKmjr5ReanpAKy7HrT_SQ382Ro0SZqRx9n6UFkyE9wdzMKIYsPhmrmUF7IQrgxbV7B3xSuiMus2GjdqvsF3UF-3xg

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 17th day of June 2023.
 
Thank you. We will now move onto opening statements, could the plaintiff please present their opening statement within 48 hours?
 
I will respond with the opening statements later today, in the meantime, we would like to request an ingame trial.
 
The Commonwealth also wishes to participate in an in-game trial.
 
What date and time would work the best for an ingame trial?
 
Your honor,

We request a sidebar to agree upon a time.
 
The sidebar request is granted, this will happen over discord.
 
In the Federal Court of the Commonwealth of Redmont
Notification of In-game Trial

After a sidebar conversation with the plaintiff and defendant we have concurred that an initial in-game trial will hereby occur on July 1st at 2:30 PM Eastern Time. The trial will be held in the Federal Courtroom, located in the Federal Courthouse.

If one of the parties is unable to make it to the initial trial, the trial will move back onto the forums.

The plaintiff will not have to provide an opening statement until the in-game trial occurs.
 
federal-court-png.12082




IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
WRIT OF SUMMONS

Plaintiff @Matthew100x and the Attorney General are required to appear before the court in the Federal Courtroom at 2:30 PM EDT on July 1st, 2023, in the case of Galavance v. CRB. Failure to appear will result in a default judgment based on the known facts of the case.

Additionally, the court orders a police officer is to be appointed by Justice Secretary @Technofied in conjunction with the courts to serve as a bailiff.​
 
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO RECUSE

Justification for Motion:

Plaintiff makes a motion to recuse based entirely on Judicial Conduct as well as their IX amendment right.

1. During the Sidebar, the honorable judge Mask3d_Wolf made comments against my client, Galavance, and was being prejudicial on the issue of statute of limitations. The Defense did not assert the statute of limitations as a defense and during the sidebar both counsels agreed that the statute of limitations was not an issue at play. Regardless, the judge approached the issue multiple times and argued against counsel, testifying and placing the position forward. This violates right IX, "Any citizen, has the right to an attorney for a speed and fair trial. Any citizen, criminal or otherwise will have the right to a speedy and fair trial presided over by an impartial Judge, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation, and to be confronted with the evidence against them, and to have the assistance of counsel for their defense" (Government - Constitution) as we believe that judge is acting with bias and not being impartial.

(We will show evidence as needed since the conversation happened during a sidebar).

2. The Honorable Mask3D_Wolf is practicing law as a judge. The plaintiff believes that this jeopardizes unbiased judicial decision making when the Judge is acting as council for clients and offering prejudicial advice (Expungement: Pending - KingCleaver (Mask3D_WOLF Representing) - Expungement Request).


DATED: This 26th day of June, 2023.
 
I will be recusing myself.
 
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

After the conclusion of the sidebar and the recusal of the honourable Mask3D_Wolf, I will be the new presiding judge. The date of the in-game trial will remain the same. GMT Date: Saturday 1 July 2023 18:30:00

It has been noted that the current schedule for the proceedings is as follows:
  • Each statement shall be allocated a duration of 7 minutes, with a 1-minute break between consecutive statements.​
  • A recess of 30 minutes between the opening and closing segments of the proceedings.
    Which results in a total time for the in-game trial of 1 hour.​
All parties involved are expected to adhere to this schedule accordingly.

After the in-game trial has concluded. documentation of the in-game trial will be posted on this forum.

Members of the public are invited to come, however, everyone should note that disruptions will result in a contempt of court charge. All parties are hereby notified, that all evidence must be submitted before the in-game trial to allow the other party to review said evidence.

Any new evidence brought up at trial will be reviewed for its admissibility, and there must be a good reason, why it has not been introduced earlier.

Besides, that I will recommend both parties, to come prepared and on time.
 
Your honor,

My client will not be at the case due to IRL reasons. I will still be there to represent his interest in his place. Can you please inform us to which court room should we report too?

Additionally, can we request a follow-up on the security request at the courthouse for the trial?
 
As requested by the Hon. MilkCrack, here are recordings of the in-game trial.

Opening Statements:

Closing Statements:
 

Verdict




I. PLAINTIFF'S POSITION
1. The Plaintiff, Galavance, purchased a loan through the defendant, CRB, in an auction.
2. The loan was for $420,000, with $250,000 already paid off and $170,000 remaining.
3. The contract required monthly payments from the borrower, BlogWorldExpo.
4. BlogWorldExpo failed to make any payments and left Redmont, giving away their assets.
5. Plaintiff alleges that the defendant misrepresented the loan they sold, breaching the contract.
6. Plaintiff seeks to void the auction contract and recover the $60,000 they paid to the defendant.

II. DEFENDANT'S POSITION
1. The defendant affirms that a loan contract was offered in an auction but disputes its inherent value.
2. The defendant states that the contract does not contain any misrepresentation regarding further payments and argues that it is not void.
3. The defendant asserts that the contract had no inherent value as no guaranteed payments were specified.
4. The defendant suggests that the plaintiff should consider suing BlogWorldExpo, who allegedly disobeyed the law, instead of the defendant.


III. THE COURT OPINION
After a careful review of the evidence, the facts, the arguments provided, past precedent and the contract law the following decision has been made:

To determine whether a misrepresentation has occurred, we can establish the following approach based on contract law.

Step 1: Determine if there was a contract.
Since both parties have acknowledged the existence of a contract, this step is completed.

Step 2: Determine the relevant statements:
Although not explicitly stated by the plaintiff, it can be inferred from the claim for relief and the opening statement that the following statement is allegedly a misrepresentation.

1. "The winning bidder shall receive the rights to any further payment made on the $420,000 at 5% for 12 months loan to Blogworldexpo (Marty), of which $250,000 has already been paid off - which the bidder shall not receive."

2. 'He is personally liable for the money.'

3. 'He pays once a month, on the 18th iirc, so I guess just wait.'

Step 3: Evaluate the statements
We will now evaluate whether these statements meet the following elements:
(a) Statement of fact
(b) Untrue or misleading by omission
(c) Acted as a material inducement

Statement 1:
Statement 1 regarding the winning bidder's rights to further payment is a term for doing business, which makes it a material inducement.
This is also a statement of fact, promising a certain right to the winning bidder.
However, the plaintiff did not allege or give evidence that they did not receive that right, the value of that right is not relevant to this statement.
Therefore it does not meet all the elements in order to be a misrepresentation.

Statement 2: The statement "He is personally liable for the money" is a statement of fact and can be classified as a warranty. While it could also be seen as a material inducement, the plaintiff has not provided any evidence to suggest that blogworldexpo is not personally liable. As a result, this statement does not qualify as a misrepresentation.

Statement 3:
Statement 3 is as followed: 'He pays once a month, on the 18th iirc, so I guess just wait.'

It is of great interest to determine the nature of this statement.

If the nature of this statement was to provide information on the payment history of the defendant. It would be both a statement of fact and a material inducement. However, because the plaintiff did not allege or give evidence that the provided information about payment history was false this statement does not meet all of the elements.

If the nature of this statement was a warranty, assuring that Blogworldexpo would pay every month. It would be a material inducement and a statement of fact and as both parties agreed that Blogworldexpo did not pay it would also be untrue. So in this case it would meet all the criteria to be a misrepresentation.

So to determine the nature of the statement, the court will first look at the statement in parts.
'He pays once a month, on the 18th' could be inferred as a promise without any context.

'iirc' is commonly understood to mean "If I recall correctly." This illustrates the following 2 things:

1. That 'someone' was uncertain about whether or not this is a factually accurate statement.
2. Is recalling events from the past, and by extension that 'someone' was not making a claim about the future.

'so I guess we wait' in combination with the emoji illustrates the uncertainty of 'someone' as to whether or not blogworldexpo will continue this trend of paying every month into the future.

It's also important to note that this statement was made in reference to a screenshot sent by the plaintiff, indicating that blogworldexpo did not intend to pay.

Finally, in the financial sector, it is understood that lending money is risky and you are not always assured to get your money back. Which is usually factored into the price trough for example interest. However, it would have been better to have included this as a disclaimer somewhere.

Although the statement taken in part could be construed as a warranty, with the context it is clear that this was a statement of fact recalling the payment history on the loan.

Due to the fact that none of the statements meets the criteria for misrepresentation, it would be moot to continue the other steps.

Because the court could not find, a misrepresentation and no other claims for relief were listed. The court rules in favour of the defendant.

IV. DECISION
The Federal Court hereby rules in favour of the defendant.

The Federal Court thanks all parties involved.

 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top