Lawsuit: In Session Maxib02 V. ILatteralus [2026] DCR 32

[Dartanboy]

The Defendant now has 72 hours to produce their own closing statement.

Your honor,
I've been trying to stay on top of things but between 4 cases and IRL things, I just can't quite keep up.

Could I have a 48 hour extension?

 

[aubunny]

Your honor,
I've been trying to stay on top of things but between 4 cases and IRL things, I just can't quite keep up.

Could I have a 48 hour extension?

Granted

 

[Dartanboy]

Closing Statement

There isn't much more to say than was brought up in the Defense's Opening Statement, however I will address the points made by the Plaintiff in their Closing Statement.

First, was a contract signed? The offer - Defendant: "What are you needing done?". Plaintiff: "A Certificate of Incorporation". Defendant: "I can help with both of those" (P-001).

At this point, the Defense is confident that a contract was signed, however the terms of that contract are in dispute.

Does paying someone only after a service has been delivered nullify the contract? Let's turn to evidence P-002, in which the Defendant advertised their services to the Plaintiff:

"I'll do these for cheap and if you need Accounting or legal help in the future, or if you know someone else who does, perhaps send them my way"

Here, the Defendant not only promotes legal services, but also services in accounting. As such, they should know that the counting of revenue requires both the receipt of money and the exchange of goods and services, regardless of order. For payment, the Plaintiff sent the Defendant $2000 as clarified in the same evidence. This was not a donation. Under §4(2)(a) of the Contracts Act, the payment was indeed "mirroring the terms of the offer".

At this point, the Defense finds the timing of the payment in this case is not particularly relevant.

Now, what about quality of work? As I read through this case, I can't bring myself to accept this defense. Let's look at P-002 once more:

"I'm a real attorney so if I can't figure it out I'm not certain who would be able to."

This isn't an "effort made" or "okay service". To echo the words here: if this isn't an advertisement for the absolute paramount in legal help, what is? It's the kind of glowing endorsement that makes one wonder how the work ended up like this. So what about the quality?

The statement: "I'm a real attorney so if I can't figure it out I'm not certain who would be able to" is not a Contract, nor is it even a Promise (which is already not legally enforceable).

This is a largely non-provable statement of fact, as Redmontians lack the capabilities to determine the Defendant's IRL job or read his mind.

It doesn't really matter if the Plaintiff's counsel "accepts this defense" (that is, that the contract never guaranteed acceptance of the document by the DoC, only that the document would be written) when it is, in fact, a perfectly reasonable explanation for what occurred.

If we turn to P-013, the first document produced for United Fruit and Beverage Company, we already see inconsistencies: first, a Certificate of Formation in the title. Early in my career, I was hit by this mistake: forming an LLC under a "Certificate of Incorporation" when it should be one of Formation. Here, the mistake was the other way around. Yet below in the very same document, the first paragraph refers to "This Articles of Incorporation". Subsequently, in P-014, P-015 and P-016, the title of the document was instead changed to "Articles of Incorporation", arguably close enough to "Certificate of Incorporation".

Making an error does not nullify the fact that a document was created. Furthermore, the Defendant went over and above by fixing the error in later versions of the document.

In P-016, "Right of First Refusal" is provided as "Maxib02 retains the exclusive right to approve or reject any proposed transfer." Yet this is mislabeled. Right of First Refusal means that if someone wishes to exchange shares for money or something else of value, they would first have to make Maxib02 an equal offer, and only after Maxib's refusal are they are allowed to seek that deal with someone else.

Again, making an error does not nullify the fact that a document was created. Furthermore, "Right of First Refusal" is not defined by Redmont law, making the clause beneath it the very definition of it in that contract.

Making mistakes like these, all the while advertising themselves as a very capable lawyer and accountant, the Defendant joined the Plaintiff's annoyance over the DoC's rejection. The document was revised several times until finally, the Defendant disappeared completely, leaving the Plaintiff to pay another firm for the same service.

Overall, I fail to see how the law was broken. Did the Defendant prove to be an incapable lawyer? Perhaps. Did the Defendant provide a poor service? Maybe.

But did the Defendant provide the documents promised to the Plaintiff in a contract? Yes. Yes he did.

It is clear that the court should rule in favor of the Defense.

 

[aubunny]

Court is now in recess pending verdict. We thank both parties for their time.