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

Status
Not open for further replies.
about 15-20% done was demolished before he started work.
 
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?
 
the plaintiff only did 15-20%
 
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)?
 
Correct.
 
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
QUESTIONS FOR THE WITNESSES

1) [To NotPhunky] Have you paid the plaintiff for their work?
 
I have not yet, i was waiting for the bank to loan money but they dident respond, i wanted to tho.
 
No further questions, your honor
 
@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.
 
@Unseatedduke1 my lawyer is quitting dc, requested extension to get a new one?
 
MysticPhunky said:
@Unseatedduke1 my lawyer is quitting dc, requested extension to get a new one?
Click to expand...
Your honor, the defendant still is represented by Prestige Law Firm. Just because blaze quit doesn’t mean Prestige no longer represents their client.
 
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.
 
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
QUESTIONS FOR THE WITNESSES

1) [To NotPhunky] What were the terms of NotBender’s employment?
 
he would demolish the plot for 5k in the day then requested 15k
 
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
QUESTIONS FOR THE WITNESSES

1) [To NotPhunky] Why did you remove NotBender from the plot?
 
MysticPhunky said:
he would demolish the plot for 5k in the day then requested 15k
Click to expand...
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.
MegaMinerM said:
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
QUESTIONS FOR THE WITNESSES

1) [To NotPhunky] What were the terms of NotBender’s employment?
Click to expand...
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.
 
Your Honor may I respond?
 
Because they couldn't be on today when we agreed only today.
 
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.
 
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?
 
Towloo said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

Asked and answered overruled.
 
MysticPhunky said:
Because they couldn't be on today when we agreed only today.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
 
MegaMinerM said:
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?
Click to expand...
@Hypegamer231 Please answer the question in the next 24 hours.
 
Unseatedduke1 said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
MegaMinerM said:
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?
Click to expand...
No, and I apologize for the late response
 
Towloo said:
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.
Click to expand...
It does indeed confuse me; please provide further clarity.
 
Unseatedduke1 said:
It does indeed confuse me; please provide further clarity.
Click to expand...
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
 
Towloo said:
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
Click to expand...
Sustained.
 
With no questions in 24 hours, we will move forward. The plaintiff has 72 hours to provide a closing statement.
 
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.
 
The defense has 72 hours to provide a closing statement
 
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.
 
Court is in recess pending verdict.
 
MegaMinerM said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Sustained. Court is in recess pending verdict.
 

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.


 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top