Lawsuit: Dismissed Icypenguin79 v. TheTrainFan [2021] FCR 8

[Davinho]

IN THE COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


Icypenguin79 (Represented by David Forest Cyrus)
Plaintiff

v.

TheTrainFan
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

Your honor,

The defendant has bid $5010 on an auction made by the plaintiff. The plaintiff has set a time limit, in which he outlines the end of the auction which is 48 hours after the last bid. In the evidence presented you will see that the defendant bid $5010 at the time. However, once the 48 hours have passed and the plaintiff has requested the money, the defendant refused to pay. By bidding in the plaintiff's auction, the defendant explicitly agreed to the obligation of providing monetary funds in exchange for the auctioned item. Furthermore, the defendant had a sufficient amount of money at the time of the auction, however, this is not the case anymore. Whether the defendant is using monetary funds for other items or real estate is unknown.

I. PARTIES
1. Icypenguin79 (Represented by David Forest Cyrus);
2. TheTrainFan

II. FACTS
1. The defendant has bid in the auction of the plaintiff, agreeing to the obligation to providing monetary funds in exchange for the auctioned item.
2. The defendant refuses to comply with the obligation he agreed to by bidding in the auction.
3. At the time he was bidding in the auction his balance was more than sufficient enough to pay the price, however, this is not the case anymore and it is unknown what the money was used for.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. Due to the times and effort of this court case which could have been clearly avoided, we ask for a monetary relief of $500

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. The defendant shall comply with the obligation he agreed to by bidding $5010 in the auction in exchange for the auctioned item.
2. The defendant shall pay $500 monetary relief for the extra effort and inconvenience made with this court case.

V. EVIDENCE
"Evidence #1": The rules of the DemocracyCraft Bid-Server (specifically rule 1: "All Rules and Laws apply").
"Evidence #2 / 5": The auction itself including the deadline, the auctioned item, etc.
"Evidence #3 / 4": The defendant bidding an amount of $5010 in the auction.
"Evidence #6": The balance of the defendant at the time of the auction.
"Evidence #7": The balance of the defendant up to date.
"Evidence #8": The plaintiff making the defendant aware that he won the auction after the 48 hours time limit.
"Evidence #9": The defendant refusing to comply with the obligation and not following through.


DATED: This 26th of January 2021

 

[Matt]

IN THE COURT OF DEMOCRACYCRAFT
SUMMONS
The defendant is required to appear before the court in the case Icypenguin79 v TheTrainFan. Failure to appear within 24 hours of this summons will result in a default judgment in favour of the plaintiff.​

 

[218218Consumer]

IN THE COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT


Icypenguin79 (Represented by David Forest Cyrus)
Plaintiff

v.

TheTrainFan (Represented by 218218Consumer)
Defendant

ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
1. The plaintiff alleges that the defendant agreed to an obligation to pay $5,010 in exchange for 3 sticks at an auction. This claim of a legally binding obligation rests on two assumptions: a) that the plaintiff could reasonably assume that the obligation was taken by the defendant with a genuine, non-facetious intention to fulfill its terms and b) that the rules of the DC Bid server or the laws of Redmont explicitly state that any bid made in an auction is automatically legally binding. The facts of the case will prove both of these assumptions to be false.
2. The defendant agrees that he refused to pay $5,010 for 3 sticks but not that he refused the terms of a legally binding obligation.
3. Whether or not the defendant was able to pay for the sticks at the time of the auction is irrelevant to whether or not he was required to: the defendant's ability to fulfill an agreement only gains relevance if such an agreement is proven to be a legally binding obligation.

DEFENSES
1. The bid made by the defendant was clearly a joke. No reasonable person would willingly pay $5,010 for 3 sticks, and the nature of the auctioned item itself indicates that the defendant made the bid not as a genuine attempt to win the auction, but as an attempt to contribute to the humor of the absurd price of a basic item. This was made abundantly clear through the defendant remarking "i dont wanna [lose] more money" directly after the bid, shown in Evidence 4 of the plaintiff's complaint. As a result, an expectation of payment would be as ludicrous as the concept of seriously bidding thousands of dollars on sticks. Blatantly facetious agreements must not be interpreted as earnest commitments: otherwise, all citizens of Redmont would be liable to civil action for the basic social interaction of humor.
2. Even the plaintiff does not take the auction very seriously: the DC Bid rules for auctioneers, shown in the first line of Evidence 1 below, indicates that auctioneers must provide images of the items they are selling. Instead of providing an image of the 3 specific sticks he owned and was planning to sell, the plaintiff opted to provide a stock image of a Minecraft stick (shown in Evidence 2): either the plaintiff is generally neglectful in providing specific images of serious possessions he puts up for auction, a claim easily disproven by his ability to provide the exact location of a property he auctioned earlier on DC Bid (shown in Evidence 3), or the plaintiff viewed this auction as a joke not worthy of adherence to a basic procedure that he was capable of following. Based on Evidence 3, the latter is clearly true.
3. There is no evidence provided by the plaintiff indicating that serious bids are legally binding, much less ones made as a joke. There is no indication in the Bidder Rules page of DC Bid, shown in Evidence 4, that winners of auctions are obligated to purchase what they bid on. The plaintiff also fails to provide any evidence of a law indicating such in the legal code of Redmont. Ludicrous, overwhelming demands, such as requesting someone spend nearly all of their balance on 3 sticks, require overwhelming legal backing through laws, and such laws do not exist.

Evidence 1, DATED: Auctioneer rules since June 28th, 2020

Evidence 2, DATED: Stick auction held on January 23rd, 2021

Evidence 3, DATED: Property auction held on January 11, 2021

Evidence 4, DATED: Bidder rules since June 10, 2020

 

[Matt]

Both parties may now provide any additional evidence. If either party does not have any additional evidence to share, they may reply noting that they do not have anything else to share.

I would first ask the plaintiff to respond, with a subsequent response from the defendant. In the effort of keeping proceedings moving, I would kindly ask any responses to be made without unnecessary delay - preferably within 24 hours.

 

[Davinho]

Your honor,

The plaintiff would like to point out a precedent set within the courts in dimitre79 v. gothmog as evidence which will be further explained in the cross-examination. We would also like to submit the following material evidence:


"Additional Evidence 1/2": This piece of evidence outlines the fact that a stock image has been used before. With that, we would like to point out that it is irrelevant to have an actual picture of the ACTUAL item as long as the description and item match the sample picture given. The auction in the picture was successful. My client has not misled the Defendant in any way.

Thank you.

 

[218218Consumer]

Your honor,

If it pleases the court, the defense would like to address the evidence presented by the plaintiff. The defense never claimed that the plaintiff's use of a stock image misled the bidder about the item that was being sold: the defense claimed that the plaintiff's lack of care in using an image of the specific sticks he was selling undermined the seriousness of the auction, a claim which we believe is reinforced by Additional Evidence 1 of the plaintiff's submission. Non-serious auctions should not demand serious losses.

Additional Evidence 1 is another instance of an auctioneer neglecting a process established in most serious auctions of displaying the specific item one intends to sell as opposed to a stock image. This auction, like the one participated in by the defendant, was very clearly a joke, in lieu of a successful transaction: directly after RileyXChan bids $1,000 on the item of the auction (a dead shrub), the auctioneer, lousydaddy, says 'LMFAO' in a an abundantly clear indication of the humor of the situation.

While unlike Train, 008kevin, the final bidder, agreed to pay for the item on which he bid, he was not legally obligated to by any direct statement of the law or rules of the DC Bid server. Further, the defense holds that the two auctions should be put in context. 008kevin bid $1,001 (shown in Evidence 5) on a shrub as a joke. Train was expected to pay 5 times that amount on sticks, an even more common item, also as a joke. Kevin wanted to humor a ridiculous auction, yet by no means does that indicate that Train was obligated to do so. Condoning demands as unreasonable as requiring someone to pay $5,510 for 3 sticks would make a mockery of civil institutions made to build fairness: lousy's auction does not change that.

The lack of specific auction rules means that the court has great flexibility in determining whether bids are legally binding or not. This bid is so outrageous that the court should exercise the flexibility granted to it to fulfill the purpose of courts: to rule fairly. In no universe should someone be forced to pay $5,010 for 3 sticks, much less $5,510 for a legal case over a joke. The plaintiff's argument is built not on law, but on unsubstantiated implications of agreement; Train did not agree to pay $5,010 for 3 sticks: he agreed to bid $5,010 as a joke. Train never agreed to pay if he ended up being the final bidder: he never signed a contract saying so. Train was not informed of any clause in our legal code requiring final bidders to pay: the auction never said so. The bidder rules never said so. The laws never said so, and the defense believes that the court should not say so either.

Granting relief over laws that do not exist is equivalent to legislating: the role of the court is to interpret the laws passed by the legislature, and the legislature has passed no laws enforcing auction bids as legally binding. It is true that in fledgling democracies such as Redmont, court flexibility in interpreting existing laws patches legal codes and strengthens the coverage of justice over areas not yet codified by our legislature. However, flexibility to the point of granting relief to this specific complaint—a complaint that, again, is not based on existing law—would not be justice. Demanding that Train lose a significant portion of his balance over a harmless joke is not justice. Demanding that a respected member of the community, a Moderator and devoted Media Advisor of the DPA, pay $5,510 over 3 sticks is not justice. With all due respect to the plaintiff, it is greed.

I am urging the court not to force Train to pay several thousand dollars over sticks.

As its response to the plaintiff, the defense would also like to send additional evidence:

Evidence 5, DATED: A hardly serious auction held January 23rd, 2021, for a dead shrub.

 

[Matt]

Both parties may now provide a closing statement. It is viable to refer to each other's responses in this statement.

I would first ask the plaintiff to respond, with a subsequent response from the defendant. In the effort of keeping proceedings moving, I would kindly ask your responses to be made without unnecessary delay - preferably within 24 hours.

 

[Davinho]

Your honor,

I would like to thank the court for the time given for this case. The Plaintiff has resolved the raised concerns outside of court and would like to drop the charges.

 

[Matt]

If the representation for the defendant could also confirm such an agreement has been reached, I'll readily close this case.

 

[218218Consumer]

The defense agrees with the dropping of charges.

 

[Matt]

Verdict

The Court hereby dismisses this case due to an out-of-court settlement reached by the parties.