- Joined
- Jun 10, 2026
- Messages
- 36
- Thread Author
- #1
Case Filing
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION
KareXXL
Plaintiff
v.
xxSmash
Defendant
COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendants as follows:
I. PARTIES
1. KareXXL (Plaintiff)2. xxSmash (Defendant)
II. FACTS
1. On the 7th of June, at 11:54 AM GMT the plaintiff had opened an auction for 45 stacks of gunpowder. (P-001, P-002)2. At 12:12 PM GMT, the defendant had submitted the winning bid of 2000$. (P-003, P-004)
3. At 8:15 PM GMT, the auction had ended. (P-004, P-005)
4. At the same time, the defendant had been informed that he had been expected to pay before receiving the stacks of gunpowder. (P-004, P-005)
5. No payment had been made by the defendant to the plaintiff between the time the defendant had won the auction and 48 hours after the auction had closed.
6. On the 11th of June, at around 2:15 PM GMT, a playtime check request had been sent to the server, with a response proving that the defendant had capacity at the time the auction had closed. (P-006)
7. At 2:29 PM GMT, an out-of-court arbitration contract had been sent by the plaintiff to the defendant. (P-007)
8. At 2:31 PM GMT, an out-of-court arbitration contract had been accepted by the defendant. (P-007)
9. No payment had been made by the defendant to the plaintiff between the time the contract message has been sent and the time the out-of-court arbitration contract had expired.
III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. Breach of Initial Contract
The Defendant's actions have resulted in a civil violation. Contracts Act, Section 4 states:We believe that the contract was valid, as:
(a) an auction is a valid offer (based on precedent formed by Bombaz2005 vs. Commonwealth of Redmont [2024] FCR 78)
(b) the offer has been accepted (posting the winning bid is deemed acceptance enough)
(c) mutual consideration exists (the plaintiff had offered the stacks of gunpowder in exchange for the defendant's money)
(d) there was intent (bidding in DemocracyCraft Discord server's #marketplace auction is deemed intent enough)
(e) the defendant had capacity, as indicated by the playtime check (1d5h23m17s - 11h55m41s is more than 6 hours, which had definitely occured before the auction was even entered, which is the capacity standard)
The lack of payment or even contact in regards to making one within 48 hours (which is a general #marketplace standard) constituted a breach of this contract.
2. Breach of Out of Court Arbitration Contract
The Defendant's actions have resulted in a civil violation.Based on the Contracts Act, Section 4 as cited above, we believe that the contract was valid, as:
(a) the statement "I will give you 24 hours from this point of moment [sic] to deliver the 2000$" constituted an offer
(b) the offer has been implictly accepted (the statement "ty fam [sic]" was interpreted as acceptance)
(c) mutual consideration exists (same reasoning as in the initial contract)
(d) there was intent (it had been generally implied through conduct)
(e) the defendant had capacity, as indicated by the playtime check (same reasoning as in the initial contract)
The lack of payment or even contact in regards to making one within 24 hours constituted a breach of this contract.
IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court grant the following relief:1. 500$ in Nominal Damages under Part III, Section 4 of the Redmont Civil Code Act for 2 breaches of contract, each valued at 250$. We deem this as proper, given the fact that no consideration has changed hands, yet there has been 2 breaches of contract. This is a relatively small amount per contract breach in comparison to the winning bid (merely 12.5% of it).
2. 30% legal fees as provided under Part III, Section 7 of the Redmont Civil Code Act.
V. EVIDENCE
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 14th day of June, 2026.
