Lawsuit: Adjourned lukeyyy v. Culls [2025] FCR 114

[BrownBerry]

Case Filing

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


lukeyyy_ (represented by MZLD)
Plaintiff

v.

Culls
Defendant

COMPLAINT​

The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF

Culls agreed to a Sale Agreement. Culls then reneged on the agreement because they "had other plans". It's a cut and dry case.

I. PARTIES​

1. lukeyyy_ (Plaintiff)
2. Culls (Defendant)

---

II. FACTS​

1. On 13 October, lukeyyy and lucaaasserole entered into negotiations to sell the World Marshals business to RaiTheGuy and Culls.
2. On 15 October, lucaaasserole and lukeyyy offered to sell the World Marshals business, its Discord server and assets, and plot c261 to RaitTheGuy and Culls for $75,000 each (see P-001; the "Sale Agreement").
3. All four parties signed the Sale Agreement, including Culls (see P-002).
4. Culls has not paid the $75,000 owing under the Sale Agreement.
5. Culls reneged on the Sale Agreement because he "had other plans" and told lukeyyy to "sue him" (see P-003).

---

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF​

1. Breach of Contract​

Plainly, Culls breached the Sale Agreement by refusing to pay the $75,000 owing. This is an open and shut case. It should not require litigation. Culls admitted in P-003 that they have no defence to the claim.

By so openly refusing to comply with the Sale Agreement and inviting litigation, Culls' conduct was outrageous and requires punitive damages.

2. Breach of Good Faith and Fair Dealing (§14 of the Contracts Act)​

Plaintiff realleges Count 1. By refusing to comply with the terms of the Sale Agreement, and openly reneging upon it, Culls breached their duty of good faith and fair dealing under §14 of the Contracts Act. It is not good faith to negotiate an agreement and then renege upon it immediately without cause.

Again, this conduct is outrageous and requires punitive damages. Plaintiff claims only one-third of the value of the contract as punitive damages.

---

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF​

The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. An injunction requiring Culls to pay Plaintiff $75k under the Sale Agreement.
2. $25k in punitive damages for Culls outrageous conduct in opening reneging on the Sale Agreement.
3. Legal fees at the standard 30% rate ($30,000).

---

V. Evidence​

Spoiler: P-001

Attachment P-001.pdf

Spoiler: P-002

Spoiler: P-003

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 27th day of October 2025.

 

[BrownBerry]

Proof of representation

 

[xtub12345]

Writ of Summons

@Culls , is required to appear before the Federal Court in the case of lukeyyy v. Culls [2025] FCR 114

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.

 

[BrownBerry]

Your Honor,

I ask that this case now proceed to default judgment. The Defendant has failed to appear within 72 hours, despite being active in-game.

 

[xtub12345]

Accepted, case is in recess pending a verdict.

 

[BrownBerry]

Your Honor,

Plaintiff would respectfully request a default verdict as soon as possible. Plaintiff understands and respects the enormous workload currently before the Federal Court; if other cases must take priority, then—of course—the Court must act in the interests of justice.

But Plaintiff is also concerned that the other purchaser in this agreement (RaiTheGuy07) has been unfairly treated. They have paid their money, but—under the terms of the contract—have not yet received the assets since Culls has not paid. RaiTheGuy07 is effectively out 75k until this matter is resolved. Plaintiff would hope for a quick verdict in order to uphold Plaintiff's rights, along with the rights of the other parties to the agreement.

Respectfully submitted,
BrownBerry

 

[Muggy21]

Court Order

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Local Rules for Judge Mug
In the interest of more efficient Courtroom proceedings, the Court will permit responses to motions without prior Court permission. The deadline for said motions shall be 48 hours.

Furthermore, in obedience with Rule 1.4, parties are advised that engaging in conduct that obstructs or interferes with the administration of this Court or its proceedings may be held in Contempt of Court.

@BrownBerry @Culls


Court is in recess pending Verdict.

 

[Muggy21]

@BrownBerry

Do you have proof of performance? Public records show that C261 remains owned by "lucaaaa" (Seller #1).
I understand your claim, but if Plaintiff didn't transfer the building, wouldn't Plaintiff also be in breach?

 

[BrownBerry]

@BrownBerry

Do you have proof of performance? Public records show that C261 remains owned by "lucaaaa" (Seller #1).
I understand your claim, but if Plaintiff didn't transfer the building, wouldn't Plaintiff also be in breach?

Your Honor,

You are correct to note that Plaintiff has not yet transferred the assets to Defendant. Under section 3(4) of the Agreement (P-001), the assets must only be transferred upon payment from Defendant. I also note sections 4 and 6, relating to the "effective date" of the transaction (the date when payment is received). The assets are transferred on the effective date.

Plaintiff would be content if Your Honor ordered Plaintiff to transfer the assets in the default verdict. Of course, regardless of the Court's order, Plaintiff will complete their part of the Agreement when payment is received.

 

[Muggy21]

Verdict

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
VERDICT - lukeyyy v. Culls [2025] FCR 114

1. Summary of Controversy:
   Plaintiff approaches Court allegeding breach of contract on a purchase agreement valued at $200,000, with $125,000 in immediate rebate. As of consummation, $75,000 is outstanding by Defendant to Plaintiff. Defendant did not appear.
   
   
2. Opinion of the Court:
   The Court finds the Sale and Transfer Agreement to be lawful in nature and in compliance with the Contracts Act. The Contract was lawfully entered, Defendant is not incompetent, nor does the Court see any questionable aspects of the Contract. According to the Contracts Act, and in Dumbyhead1234 v. shadownba [2023] DCR 7, a contract is only unenforceable if a formation element (Offer, Acceptance, Consideration, Intent, Capacity) is missing. Within this Contract, the offer is explicit, the agreement is unambiguous, there is a lawful consideration, and intent is expressly stated by Defendant.
   
   The Defendant has failed to perform to the Contract, the Court therefore orders performance.
   
   
3. Order of the Court:
   
   The Court awards the following:
   1. Defendant shall pay $75,000 to Plaintiff in execution of the Sale Agreement.
   2. Defendant shall pay $12,500 to MZLD (Plaintiff’s Counselors) in Legal Fees.
   3. Defendant shall pay $12,500 in Punitive Damages to Plaintiff for reneging on a previously signed agreement outside of the acceptable reasons under the Contracts Act.

So ordered,
Judge Mug