Lawsuit: Adjourned HypeGamer231 V. NotPhunky [2024] FCR 81

[Towloo]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION

HypeGamer231
Plaintiff


V


NotPhunky
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The plaintiff complains against the defendant as follows:
On June 1st, 2024, the plaintiff entered into an original agreement with the defendant (P-001). The agreement was that for $5,000, the plaintiff would demolish the structure on c563. The two parties then later negotiated the original $5,000 price to $15,000 (P-002). All was well until the plaintiff announced that he was going to take a one hour break. At this remark, the defendant told the plaintiff to cease further progress on demolishing despite the fact that the plaintiff and the defendant had already entered into an agreement. The plaintiff is now yet to receive payment and has been prevented from being able to continue progress (P-003).

I. PARTIES
1) HypeGamer231 (Plaintiff)
2) NotPhunky (Defendant)

II. FACTS
1) The plaintiff and defendant entered into an original agreement for the plaintiff to demolish the structure on c563 for $5,000

2) The plaintiff and defendant then negotiated this price to $15,000 for the same amount of work

3) After making progress (P-004), the defendant requested the plaintiff to stop despite the agreement

4) The defendant removed the plaintiff from the plot, preventing him from making progress

5) The defendant hasn’t paid the plaintiff for his work, nor the work that the plaintiff was unable to do due to the defendant’s deliberate actions

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1) The plaintiff fulfilled their obligations under an agreement with the defendant to the best of their ability. However, the defendant then took steps to prevent the plaintiff from completing the agreement, even though the terms had already been mutually agreed upon. Since the plaintiff upheld their end of the contract before being obstructed, they are entitled to the agreed-upon payment for the work they completed and the work that they were prevented from completing.

2) Taking steps to stop a contract from happening in order to void payment for it is outrageous conduct, and the plaintiff should be entitled to punitive damages for the defendant’s actions.

IV. PRAYERS FOR RELIEF
1) $15,000 in compensatory damages
2) $10,000 in punitive damages
3) $7,500 in legal fees

V. EVIDENCE

P-001

P-002

P-003

P-004

P-005

 

[Towloo]

Your honor, here is proof of representation that Dragon Law will be representing the plaintiff in this case:

 

[Unseatedduke1]

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

@NotPhunky is required to appear before the Federal Court in the case of HypeGamer231 V. NotPhunky. 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.​

 

[MysticPhunky]

my lawyer will post something soon - but i have atleast appeared to prevent a default judgement

 

[itsBlazeX]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Motion to Dismiss​

Your honor, the Defendant move to dismiss this case under Rule 5.5 for lack of claim.

The Plaintiff's first claim for relief states that " fulfilled their obligations under an agreement with the defendant to the best of their ability," and that they "upheld their end of the contract." This is just a false statement. The Defendant only removed the Plaintiff from the plot when they had been inactive, and needed to find someone else who would be willing to complete the job. If anyone breached the agreement, it would be the Plaintiff.

Additionally, the Plaintiff also claims that the Defendant took steps to void the payment, but this is just not true. The Defendant was truly willing to pay the Plaintiff for their work, however, the Plaintiff completed an insignificant amount of the demolition, and then became inactive. The Defendant simply wanted their building demolished, and the Plaintiff's actions made it evident that they would be unable to do that. Therefore, the Defendant was right to find another worker to demolish the building.

Your honor, the defense respectfully requests that this case is dismissed with prejudice, as all this case is is the Plaintiff looking to blame someone else for their own irresponsible actions.

 

[Unseatedduke1]

The plaintiff has 48 hours to respond.

 

[Towloo]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Motion to Dismiss​

Your honor, the Defendant move to dismiss this case under Rule 5.5 for lack of claim.

The Plaintiff's first claim for relief states that " fulfilled their obligations under an agreement with the defendant to the best of their ability," and that they "upheld their end of the contract." This is just a false statement. The Defendant only removed the Plaintiff from the plot when they had been inactive, and needed to find someone else who would be willing to complete the job. If anyone breached the agreement, it would be the Plaintiff.

Additionally, the Plaintiff also claims that the Defendant took steps to void the payment, but this is just not true. The Defendant was truly willing to pay the Plaintiff for their work, however, the Plaintiff completed an insignificant amount of the demolition, and then became inactive. The Defendant simply wanted their building demolished, and the Plaintiff's actions made it evident that they would be unable to do that. Therefore, the Defendant was right to find another worker to demolish the building.

Your honor, the defense respectfully requests that this case is dismissed with prejudice, as all this case is is the Plaintiff looking to blame someone else for their own irresponsible actions.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ANSWER TO MOTION TO DISMISS

Your Honor,

In response to the Motion to Dismiss, we present the following points:

1. Performance of Contractual Obligations:
   • My client was fulfilling his contractual obligations until being stopped as evidenced by documents P-004 and P-005.
2. Lack of Specified Time Frame:
   • The contract did not stipulate a specific time frame for the completion of work. Considering the contract was agreed upon, and considering the amount of work completed within a few hours, it is reasonable to infer that my client would have completed his work within approximately one-two weeks.
3. Allegation of Inactivity:
   • The motion asserts that my client "then became inactive." My client maintains that he was merely taking a brief break of a few hours, which does not constitute inactivity, particularly in the absence of a specified time frame.
4. Entitlement to Compensation:
   • Even if, hypothetically, my client had become inactive (which he denies), and this was deemed a breach of the agreement (which it isn't), he is nonetheless entitled to compensation for the work he successfully completed.

For these reasons, we respectfully request that the Motion to Dismiss be denied.

 

[Unseatedduke1]

The motion to dismiss is denied. Rule 5.5 states, "A Motion to Dismiss may be filed for failure to state a claim for relief, or against a claim for relief that has insufficient evidence to support the civil or criminal charge." The original complaint provides ample evidence for this issue to be presented in this courtroom today. The motion to dismiss lacks valid arguments and is merely an attempt to secure a ruling before a trial is conducted.

We will now move into a 7 Day Discovery period. Should both sides agree, discovery can be ended early.

During this time any evidence or witnesses need to be asked/submitted. We will not be allowing new evidence or witnesses to be submitted during the course of the trial.

 

[Towloo]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
WITNESS LISTS

The plaintiff calls HypeGamer231 to the stand

The plaintiff calls NotPhunky to the stand

 

[Unseatedduke1]

Given Discovery is now over, we will be moving onto Opening Statements.
The Plaintiff has 72 hours to provide their Opening Statement.

 

[Towloo]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OPENING STATEMENT

Today, we are here to address a clear case of breach of contract and the resulting damages inflicted upon my client, the plaintiff. On June 1st, 2024, the plaintiff entered into an agreement with the defendant. The terms were straightforward: for $5,000, the plaintiff would demolish a structure on property c563. Subsequently, this amount was renegotiated and increased to $15,000, reflecting the true scope and value of the work involved.

My client, fully committed to fulfilling his obligations under this contract, began the demolition work as agreed. This is evidenced by P-004 and P-005. Everything was proceeding smoothly until the plaintiff, who had been working diligently, announced that he was going to take a one hour break against the defendant's requests to finish it then (these were merely requests not based in law).

Shortly after, my client was removed from the plot and was unable to obtain the compensation that he deserved. These punitive actions were carried through despite the fact that the agreement had already been reached and work was underway. This interruption was not due to any failure on the plaintiff's part to perform the contracted work. In fact, no specific timeframe for the completion of the demolition was ever stipulated in the contract. The defendant actively blocked the plaintiff from continuing his work, which constituted an unjustified interference with the performance of the contractual obligations.

Moreover, the defendant's motion to dismiss alleges that the plaintiff "became inactive." This is a mischaracterization of the facts. The plaintiff was merely taking a brief and reasonable break, which should not be misconstrued as inactivity, especially given that the defendant removed my client from c563 on the same day (the same twenty-four hour period) that demolition had begun. Additionally, the absence of a specified timeframe for the work's completion further makes the defendant's claim frivolous. The plaintiff was fully prepared and capable of completing the demolition within a week at most, and the next day at least, a reasonable period for such work.

The essence of this case lies in the defendant's unwarranted cessation of the agreed-upon work and the subsequent refusal to compensate the plaintiff. Despite the plaintiff's readiness and willingness to complete the job, he has not received any payment for the substantial work already performed. This is not only a breach of contract but also a denial of fair and just compensation for services rendered.

As we proceed, you will review evidence/testimonies that will unequivocally establish the defendant's liability. The plaintiff has upheld his end of the agreement as best as a reasonable person could and is entitled to the compensation promised.

We ask that you carefully consider the evidence and testimonies presented. It is our aim to ensure that justice is served and that the plaintiff receives the compensation he is rightfully owed for the work he has completed.

Thank you.

 

[Unseatedduke1]

The Defense has 72 hours to provide their Opening Statement.

 

[itsBlazeX]

Your honor, I would like to request a 5 day extension. I am on vacation IRL at the moment and will not be home until Sunday. If I find time I will try to get my opening statement in sooner, but I cannot guarantee that I will have time to present my opening statement in time.

 

[Unseatedduke1]

Since this request came in near the deadline and involves a significant extension, I will approve a 48-hour extension. Feel free to request additional time later if needed. Another lawyer from your firm is also welcome to submit the post.

 

[itsBlazeX]

Your honor, I am going to need another extension. I will be able to post an opening statement on Monday. I return from my trip late night Sunday, but after that I will be able to present an opening statement.

 

[Unseatedduke1]

Granted

 

[itsBlazeX]

Your honor, may the defense enter new evidence? I am aware this is not generally permitted, however, new evidence has come to light after discovery that could play a crucial role in this trial.

 

[Unseatedduke1]

Overruled. I stated that new evidence would not be allowed after discovery. Unless there is a special reason it wasn't uploaded.

 

[itsBlazeX]

Overruled. I stated that new evidence would not be allowed after discovery. Unless there is a special reason it wasn't uploaded.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Motion to Reconsider
Your honor, I respectfully request that I be allowed to enter new evidence. I was not aware of this evidence until after discovery. This exhibit could have a large impact on the outcome of this trial, and I respectfully request you allow me to upload it. It is important to consider all facts in the outcome of a trial, and not allowing me to submit this evidence would not be considering all the facts relevant to this case.

 

[Unseatedduke1]

I will allow the Plaintiff 24 hours to respond.

 

[Unseatedduke1]

I will be speaking to both parties in my chambers to review this evidence before allowing it in court after discovery.

 

[Towloo]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Motion to Reconsider
Your honor, I respectfully request that I be allowed to enter new evidence. I was not aware of this evidence until after discovery. This exhibit could have a large impact on the outcome of this trial, and I respectfully request you allow me to upload it. It is important to consider all facts in the outcome of a trial, and not allowing me to submit this evidence would not be considering all the facts relevant to this case.

Your Honor,

I respectfully oppose the motion to reconsider and the request to introduce new evidence at this late stage of the proceedings. The rules of discovery are crucial for maintaining fairness and ensuring that each party has an equal opportunity to prepare their case based on the evidence known to both sides.

It is important to highlight that while we have already presented our opening statement, opposing counsel has not yet done so. Allowing the introduction of new evidence now would unfairly prejudice our case, as it would disrupt our prepared strategy and leave us unable to address this new evidence in our already presented opening statement.

The rules of procedure are designed to prevent such procedural disadvantages and uphold the fairness and integrity of the trial. Permitting the admission of new evidence after our opening statement has been made would undermine these principles and could severely impact our ability to present our case effectively.

Therefore, Your Honor, I respectfully urge the court to deny the motion to reconsider and maintain the current framework of the trial proceedings, ensuring that both parties adhere to the rules of discovery and procedural fairness.

Thank you for your consideration of this important matter.

 

[Unseatedduke1]

The Motion to reconsider is denied. I spoke with both parties in my chambers and reviewed the evidence. The evidence was related to a different player, not the defendant in this lawsuit. It appears that the player's IGN is NotPhunky, while their Discord name is MysticPhunky. I see no evidence suggesting that the person with the IGN NotPhunky is someone else. I believe they simply had a nickname set. I will be consulting the staff team to provide clarity on the issue.

 

[Unseatedduke1]

I have also decided to charge the Defendant @MysticPhunky and @itsBlazeX with perjury. The defendant changed his IGN midway through this trial and then had his lawyer present the court in chambers with an image of "NotPhunky" playtime to attempt to lie and deceive this court into believing this was another player. I also don't believe that waiting until after discovery was an accident. According to NameMC, the player "NotPhunky" changed their name to "MysticPhunky" on June 24 - this was three weeks after the lawsuit started. Then suddenly after that, the lawyer "sees" that it is a different player. I do not appreciate this kind of blatant disrespect for the courts. I expect everyone in this courtroom to play by the rules and cross all of their T's and dot all of their I's before anything else is said or posted.

The Defense has 24 hours from this post to submit their opening statement.

 

[itsBlazeX]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF REDMONT
Motion to Reconsider
Your honor, perjury is the act of knowingly lying in Court. That has not occurred here. I was not aware that my client changed his name, and was simply calling out the fact that this lawsuit is against a different party. No one has lied in this instance. At the very least, I ask that you charge me with perjury and not my client, they have done nothing wrong.

 

[Unseatedduke1]

Denied. I simply don't believe you. It appears to be a clear stunt to attempt to sway this court.

 

[itsBlazeX]

Denied. I simply don't believe you. It appears to be a clear stunt to attempt to sway this court.

Your honor I just want to remind you of the definition of perjury. Perjury is defined as "the act of giving knowingly incorrect testimony in Court." I would like to refer back to our conversation in your chambers. In there, I simply stated NotPhunky did not have the playtime to enter a contract. That is not a false statement. At the time, I was looking for a way to make the contract void. So I checked my client's playtime. I assumed my client's IGN was NotPhunky, given that is the named Defendant in this lawsuit. I was not made aware that they had changed their name to MysticPhunky. No one intentionally made a false statement, this was simply a misunderstanding. Unless there is proof that there was intent to the statements given, me nor my client can be charged with perjury.

 

[Unseatedduke1]

You are correct regarding the definition of perjury. While I firmly believe this wasn't a mistake, the law is the law, and I will redact the perjury charges. I expect much better from anyone appearing in my court, and I trust you will speak with your client more frequently before entering anything into this court to prevent further "miscommunication". The deadline remains in effect.

 

[itsBlazeX]

May it please the Court,
Your honor, we are here today because the Plaintiff believes that the Defendant intentionally stopped the Plaintiff from upholding their end of a verbal agreement.

Let's first take a look at what makes valid contract. A valid contract needs to have offer, acceptance, consideration, intent, and capacity. This contract clearly has offer, as both sides are willing to enter this agreement. This contract contains consideration, the demolition of a building in return for money. Intent is also shown by the verbal agreement of the two parties. Both parties also have the capacity to enter a contract. However, the acceptance of this contract can be disputed. "Acceptance is the positive and unambiguous response to an offer communicated to the offeror, mirroring the terms of the offer and conveyed through various means." Acceptance is questionable in this case, as there is a dispute about pay. The response from both parties is not positive and unambiguous, as there is an argument about fair pay.

When the Plaintiff and Defendant entered into an agreement, it was assumed that the work that the Plaintiff was responsible for would be completed promply. When the Defendant returned to his property, the building was still standing, and the Plaintiff was no where to be found. Seeing as the Plaintiff had not held up his end of the agreement, and it did not appear he was going to, the Defendant did what any reasonable person would, and found another contractor to demolish the building. In this case, neither party held up their end of the agreement. The Plaintiff did not demolish the building, and the Defendant did not pay the Plaintiff. This itself makes the agreement void.

The Plaintiff believes they were somehow injured in this matter. However, the Plaintiff has not shown any proof of injury, which is the entire basis of this case. There is no possible way the Plaintiff could have been injured, as they did not actually demolish the building. The Plaintiff is simply looking to blame someone else for their failure to uphold their end of the agreement.

Your honor, this case has no merit. The Plaintiff is simply looking for a convenient way for them to make some extra money. The entire basis of the Plaintiff's argument is that they demolished the building, and weren't paid for it. However P-004 and P-005 do not prove anything. It is simply an image of a semi-demolished building. There is no proof of the Plaintiff being the one to have demolished any of the building at all. I respectfully request if this case goes to verdict, you take into account the lack of evidence, and lack of foundation in the Plaintiff's argument.

Thank you.

 

[Unseatedduke1]

Thank you. I will issue witness summonses shortly.

 

[Unseatedduke1]

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

@MysticPhunky and @Hypegamer231 is required to appear before the court in the case of HypeGamer231 V. NotPhunky [2024] FCR 81. Failure to appear within 48 hours of this summons will result in a Contempt of Court charge.​

 

[Hypegamer231]

Present your honor

 

[MysticPhunky]

Present your honor.

 

[Unseatedduke1]

@Towloo You may begin questioning the witnesses. Please direct your questions both witnesses at the same time within the next 24 hours. Witnesses, please respond within 24 hours. Any follow-up questions should also be asked within 24 hours after the witnesses' responses.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

Your honor, the plaintiff requests a 24 hour extension as 24 hours is a fairly short amount of time on a week day.

 

[Towloo]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
QUESTIONS FOR THE WITNESSES

1) [To all witnesses] In reference to the agreements shown in P-001 and P-002, could both of you please state the terms you believed to be agreed upon (the final agreement)?

 

[Hypegamer231]

So, the agreement was that for $15000 I would demolish the building on c563

 

[MysticPhunky]

the agreement was that i paid the user 15k for their work.

 

[Unseatedduke1]

Your honor, the plaintiff requests a 24 hour extension as 24 hours is a fairly short amount of time on a week day.

Granted. 48 hours to ask questions. Witnesses still have 24 hours to respond.

 

[Towloo]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
QUESTIONS FOR THE WITNESSES

1) [To HypeGamer231] What was the exact date that you started work, and what was the exact date that the defendant removed you from the plot?

2) [To NotPhunky] What work was HypeGamer231 to do?

 

[MysticPhunky]

To Demolish my Building.

 

[Hypegamer231]

I started work on June 1st and was kicked from the plot on June 1st

 

[Towloo]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
QUESTIONS FOR THE WITNESSES

1) About what percentage of the structure on c563 did you demolish?

2) What plot was “my Building” on?

 

[Towloo]

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

Your honor, the defendant never filed the answer to complaint

 

[Unseatedduke1]

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

Your honor, the defendant never filed the answer to complaint

Overruled. The defendant filed a motion to dismiss in place of the answer to the complaint.

 

[Towloo]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
QUESTIONS FOR THE WITNESSES

1) About what percentage of the structure on c563 did you demolish?

2) What plot was “my Building” on?

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CLARIFICATION

For clarifying purposes, the first question is directed to HypeGamer231 while the second is directed towards NotPhunky

 

[MysticPhunky]

the plot was c563

 

[Hypegamer231]

I, demolished, 55% of the build

 

[Towloo]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
QUESTIONS FOR THE WITNESSES

1) [To NotPhunky] What percentage of the building had been demolished before you removed the plaintiff from your plot?

2) [To HypeGamer231] Did you take a break? If yes, for how long?

 

[Hypegamer231]

Yes, I took a break of 2-3hr

 

[MysticPhunky]

about 15-20% done was demolished before he started work.

 

[Towloo]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
QUESTIONS FOR THE WITNESSES

1) [To NotPhunky] "about 15-20% done was demolished before he started work." Perhaps I am not interpreting your answer to the question correct, but are you saying that 15-20% was done before work from the plaintiff had begun or that 15-20% was done before you had removed the plaintiff from the plot?

 

[MysticPhunky]

the plaintiff only did 15-20%

 

[Towloo]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
QUESTIONS FOR THE WITNESSES

1) [To NotPhunky] Is it true that the plaintiff “started work on June 1st and was kicked from the plot on June 1st” (Quote from HypeGamer231 in this lawsuit)?

 

[MysticPhunky]

Correct.

 

[Towloo]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
QUESTIONS FOR THE WITNESSES

1) [To NotPhunky] Have you paid the plaintiff for their work?

 

[MysticPhunky]

I have not yet, i was waiting for the bank to loan money but they dident respond, i wanted to tho.

 

[Towloo]

No further questions, your honor

 

[Unseatedduke1]

@MysticPhunky Your lawyer may begin questioning the witnesses. Please direct your questions both witnesses at the same time within the next 24 hours. Witnesses, please respond within 24 hours. Any follow-up questions should also be asked within 24 hours after the witnesses' responses.

 

[MysticPhunky]

@Unseatedduke1 my lawyer is quitting dc, requested extension to get a new one?

 

[Alexander P. Love]

@Unseatedduke1 my lawyer is quitting dc, requested extension to get a new one?

Your honor, the defendant still is represented by Prestige Law Firm. Just because blaze quit doesn’t mean Prestige no longer represents their client.

 

[Unseatedduke1]

@Unseatedduke1 my lawyer is quitting dc, requested extension to get a new one?

You have 42 hours to either find a new lawyer or request a Public Defender.

 

[MegaMinerM]

Your Honor,

I am now handling this case. I request an additional 24 hours so that I can look over the case thoroughly and respond.

 

[Unseatedduke1]

Granted

 

[MegaMinerM]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
QUESTIONS FOR THE WITNESSES

1) [To NotPhunky] What were the terms of NotBender’s employment?

 

[MysticPhunky]

he would demolish the plot for 5k in the day then requested 15k

 

[MegaMinerM]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
QUESTIONS FOR THE WITNESSES

1) [To NotPhunky] Why did you remove NotBender from the plot?

 

[Towloo]

he would demolish the plot for 5k in the day then requested 15k

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION
PERJURY

1) In response to the question, “In reference to the agreements shown in P-001 and P-002, could both of you please state the terms you believed to be agreed upon (the final agreement)?” The witness answered, “the agreement was that i paid the user 15k for their work.” Now the same witness is stating, “he would demolish the plot for 5k in the day then requested 15k. It is evident that the witness is now twisting his answers to be able to fit the defense’s narrative, and based on P-001 and P-002 the ladder answer has been perjured.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
QUESTIONS FOR THE WITNESSES

1) [To NotPhunky] What were the terms of NotBender’s employment?

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION
ASKED AND ANSWERED

1) The same question that has been asked by the plaintiff has been asked by the defense, they both ask for the agreed upon terms of the plaintiff’s employment, only worded differently.

 

[MegaMinerM]

Your Honor may I respond?

 

[Unseatedduke1]

you may

 

[MysticPhunky]

Because they couldn't be on today when we agreed only today.

 

[MegaMinerM]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
RESPONSE TO OBJECTION

The plaintiff's counsel has pointed to a particular agreement reflected in their evidence. However, it is essential to consider the entirety of the interactions and understandings between the parties involved.

The plaintiff's counsel is focusing on a specific agreement based on the evidence they have provided. However, my argument pertains to the general agreement between the parties, which encompasses a broader context and understanding beyond the limited scope of the evidence presented by the plaintiff.

 

[MegaMinerM]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
QUESTIONS FOR THE WITNESSES

1) [To HypeGamer231] Did you make any attempts to resolve this dispute outside of court before filing the lawsuit?

 

[Unseatedduke1]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION
PERJURY

1) In response to the question, “In reference to the agreements shown in P-001 and P-002, could both of you please state the terms you believed to be agreed upon (the final agreement)?” The witness answered, “the agreement was that i paid the user 15k for their work.” Now the same witness is stating, “he would demolish the plot for 5k in the day then requested 15k. It is evident that the witness is now twisting his answers to be able to fit the defense’s narrative, and based on P-001 and P-002 the ladder answer has been perjured.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION
ASKED AND ANSWERED

1) The same question that has been asked by the plaintiff has been asked by the defense, they both ask for the agreed upon terms of the plaintiff’s employment, only worded differently.

Perjury sustained. The witness contradicted themselves, so I will be striking the response and relying on their initial statement.

Asked and answered overruled.

 

[Towloo]

Because they couldn't be on today when we agreed only today.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION
PERJURY

1) Given that the prior objection was sustained and we are relying on the initial statements given by the witnesses ("So, the agreement was that for $15000 I would demolish the building on c563" and "the agreement was that i paid the user 15k for their work") this answer is also perjured as they are now stating that there was a time limit when before there was no mention of this supposed time limit.

2) Even assuming that the statement was true, it's blatantly false because the witness admitted that "[HypeGamer231] started work on June 1st and was kicked from the plot on June 1st." He then further reiterated (according to the same witness) "the plaintiff only did 15-20%" Clearly the plaintiff was on that day, as the 15-20% was demolished by him.

 

[Unseatedduke1]

Overruled. The omission of a time limit does not constitute providing false information. If there is another aspect of your objection that I have misunderstood, please clarify.

 

[Unseatedduke1]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
QUESTIONS FOR THE WITNESSES

1) [To HypeGamer231] Did you make any attempts to resolve this dispute outside of court before filing the lawsuit?

@Hypegamer231 Please answer the question in the next 24 hours.

 

[Towloo]

Overruled. The omission of a time limit does not constitute providing false information. If there is another aspect of your objection that I have misunderstood, please clarify.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO RECONSIDER

Your honor, I would like to point out point two. Point two shows that even if there was a time limit, the answer is simply false. The plaintiff was on that day, as the witness admitted that HypeGamer231 had made 15-20% progress on the demolition. If there was only one day (June 1st) for demolition and 15-20% of demolition progress had been made by the plaintiff, then the plaintiff was on that day (June 1st) to have been able to make that progress. The same witness even admitted that the plaintiff had begun work on June 1st. I will be able to provide further clarification if this explanation confuses you, your honor.

 

[Hypegamer231]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
QUESTIONS FOR THE WITNESSES

1) [To HypeGamer231] Did you make any attempts to resolve this dispute outside of court before filing the lawsuit?

No, and I apologize for the late response

 

[Unseatedduke1]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO RECONSIDER

Your honor, I would like to point out point two. Point two shows that even if there was a time limit, the answer is simply false. The plaintiff was on that day, as the witness admitted that HypeGamer231 had made 15-20% progress on the demolition. If there was only one day (June 1st) for demolition and 15-20% of demolition progress had been made by the plaintiff, then the plaintiff was on that day (June 1st) to have been able to make that progress. The same witness even admitted that the plaintiff had begun work on June 1st. I will be able to provide further clarification if this explanation confuses you, your honor.

It does indeed confuse me; please provide further clarity.

 

[Towloo]

It does indeed confuse me; please provide further clarity.

The witness confirmed that HypeGamer231 had made 15-20% progress on the demolition. If the demolition was supposed to be completed in one day (June 1st) and 15-20% progress was made, then the plaintiff must have been working on June 1st to achieve that progress. Therefore the witness has lied when they stated "they couldn't be on today."

TLDR, the 15-20% didn't demolish itself

 

[Unseatedduke1]

The witness confirmed that HypeGamer231 had made 15-20% progress on the demolition. If the demolition was supposed to be completed in one day (June 1st) and 15-20% progress was made, then the plaintiff must have been working on June 1st to achieve that progress. Therefore the witness has lied when they stated "they couldn't be on today."

TLDR, the 15-20% didn't demolish itself

Sustained.

 

[Unseatedduke1]

With no questions in 24 hours, we will move forward. The plaintiff has 72 hours to provide a closing statement.

 

[Towloo]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CLOSING ARGUMENT

Your honor,

May it please the court,

Today, we are here to address a clear breach of contract. On June 1st, 2024, my client, the plaintiff, entered into an agreement with the defendant for a payment of $15,000 to demolish a structure on property C563. Evidence and testimonies confirm that my client was committed to this agreement and initiated the demolition work as documented in Exhibits P-004 and P-005.

My client commenced the demolition work as agreed and continued performing his duties until he was removed from the site by the defendant. The defendant’s decision to halt the work was arbitrary and unjustified, directly preventing the plaintiff from fulfilling the contract.

The defense has argued that the plaintiff’s work was incomplete and therefore not entitled to payment. Even if we assume, for the sake of argument, that the demolition needed to be completed on June 1st (which was not stipulated), my client was capable of finishing the job that day. The defendant's removal of the plaintiff from the site on the same day work began prevented the completion of the demolition.

The brief break taken by the plaintiff was reasonable and should not be mistaken for inactivity. Even if the contract required completion by June 1st (which it did not), this short pause did not impede the job’s completion within the day. The defendant's portrayal of this break as a breach is a misrepresentation. My client could have completed the demolition within the remaining time on June 1st if not for the defendant’s unjust removal.

The defense has presented several arguments during this trial. Initially, they claimed the plaintiff’s work was incomplete and therefore not worthy of payment. Subsequently, they questioned the acceptance of the contract. Now, they argue that the demolition had to be completed on June 1st. These varied arguments reflect a desperate attempt to avoid responsibility by introducing unsupported conditions.

Additionally, the defendant’s credibility is compromised due to inconsistent statements. The defendant’s testimony has been undermined by perjury, affecting the reliability of his claims. This inconsistency should be considered when evaluating the validity of the defense's arguments concerning the contract's time frame (Also note that the defense has provided no further supportive evidence for the claim of a time frame, while the plaintiff has provided evidence of both parties agreeing to the $15,000 payment for the demolition, with no specified time frame mentioned.).

In conclusion, I urge you to consider the evidence and testimonies presented. My client entered into this agreement in good faith, performed his duties as expected, and was unjustly prevented from completing the job. He is entitled to the $15,000 agreed upon in the contract.

Thank you for your attention and careful consideration. We trust you will deliver a verdict that ensures justice and fair compensation for my client.

Thank you.

 

[Unseatedduke1]

The defense has 72 hours to provide a closing statement

 

[MegaMinerM]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CLOSING ARGUMENT


Your honor,


May it please the court,


My client hired the plaintiff to demolish a building on C563 for $15,000. However after the plaintiff logged off, only 15%-20% of the building had been demolished. The plaintiff leaving during demolition had never been communicated within the agreement in the evidence provided.

Furthermore, my client attempted to pay the plaintiff however their bank never responded to their requests for a loan to pay for the plaintiff’s services.

Additionally, the plaintiff never attempted to get paid for their work or settle the dispute, and instead immediately filed a lawsuit.

As we can see, my client has tried their best to pay the plaintiff however due to reasons out of their control they haven’t been able to. So the question lies, should my client have to pay over double of the agreed amount for services that were never fully rendered? The plaintiff’s decision to leave the job incomplete and immediately pursue legal action without attempting to resolve the matter amicably is indicative of bad faith, especially as my client was not only willing to put attempted to pay the plaintiff for their work.


Thank you.

 

[Unseatedduke1]

Court is in recess pending verdict.

 

[Towloo]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CLOSING ARGUMENT


Your honor,


May it please the court,


My client hired the plaintiff to demolish a building on C563 for $15,000. However after the plaintiff logged off, only 15%-20% of the building had been demolished. The plaintiff leaving during demolition had never been communicated within the agreement in the evidence provided.

Furthermore, my client attempted to pay the plaintiff however their bank never responded to their requests for a loan to pay for the plaintiff’s services.

Additionally, the plaintiff never attempted to get paid for their work or settle the dispute, and instead immediately filed a lawsuit.

As we can see, my client has tried their best to pay the plaintiff however due to reasons out of their control they haven’t been able to. So the question lies, should my client have to pay over double of the agreed amount for services that were never fully rendered? The plaintiff’s decision to leave the job incomplete and immediately pursue legal action without attempting to resolve the matter amicably is indicative of bad faith, especially as my client was not only willing to put attempted to pay the plaintiff for their work.


Thank you.

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

1) Your honor, the defense failed to submit their closing argument within the time frame specified and did not request an extension. I move to strike this from the record.

 

[Unseatedduke1]

Sustained. Court is in recess pending verdict.

 

[Unseatedduke1]

Verdict

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
VERDICT

HypeGamer231 V. NotPhunky [2024] FCR 81

I. PLAINTIFFS POSITION
1. The plaintiff and defendant entered into an original agreement for the plaintiff to demolish the structure on c563 for $5,000.
2. The plaintiff and defendant then negotiated this price to $15,000 for the same amount of work.
3. The defendant removed the plaintiff from the plot, preventing him from making progress.
4. The defendant hasn’t paid the plaintiff for their work, nor the work that the plaintiff was unable to do due to the defendant’s deliberate actions.


II. DEFENDANT'S POSITION
1. The Defendant only removed the Plaintiff from the plot when they had been inactive and needed to find someone else who would be willing to complete the job. If anyone breached the agreement, it would be the Plaintiff.
2. The Defendant was truly willing to pay the Plaintiff for their work; however, the Plaintiff completed an insignificant amount of the demolition and then became inactive. The Defendant simply wanted their building demolished, and the Plaintiff's actions made it evident that they would be unable to do that. Therefore, the Defendant was right to find another worker to demolish the building.


III. THE COURT OPINION

1. This ruling is based on the information presented by the parties and matters commonly known to the public.
2. It is clear that the plaintiff and defendant entered into an agreement for the plaintiff to demolish c563 for $5,000, which was later renegotiated to $15,000. It is also clear that the plaintiff took a short break the same day, after which the defendant removed the plaintiff from the plot without payment or notice.
3. A legal agreement was formed with the terms that if the plaintiff completed the work, they would be paid $15,000. The defendant prevented the plaintiff from finishing the work. Since this was a verbal agreement and not a written contract, the defendant would need to either pay the plaintiff an amount proportional to the work completed or both parties would need to agree to stop the work.
4. Through witness testimony, it was revealed that the plaintiff claimed to have demolished 55% of the building, while the defendant claimed only 15-20% was demolished. Since no proof was provided regarding the exact amount of work completed, the court will assume a fair 37% of the work was done, taking the balance of probabilities into account. Neither side provided clear evidence of the demolition progress with photos. It was also revealed that the plaintiff did not communicate with the defendant about the issue before filing this suit, and the defendant had planned to take a loan to pay the plaintiff.
5. The agreement was broken since the defendant did not pay for the work completed. However, it is clear the defendant intended to pay the plaintiff and was waiting for the loan. The plaintiff did not attempt to get payment before filing this suit, leading to the court's final opinion.
6. The agreement was breached, entitling the plaintiff to compensation for the work completed. However, regarding punitive damages, the plaintiff did not communicate with the defendant to seek payment after being removed, and the defendant had no intent to outrageously scam the plaintiff.

IV. DECISION
In the matter of FCR 81, the court rules in favor of the Plaintiff with a modified prayer for relief.

1. The plaintiff will be paid $5,550 (37% of $15,000) for the work completed.
2. The plaintiff is awarded $5,000 in legal fees to be paid to the lawyer, given the extended duration of the case.

The Federal Court thanks all involved.