Lawsuit: Pending MegaMango800 v. Ebborsnam [2026] DCR 170

00f3

00f3

Citizen
BAR Councillor
Supporter
Aventura Resident
Education Department
00f3
00f3
BAR Councillor
Joined
May 25, 2026
Messages
25

Case Filing


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


MegaMango800 (Represented by Theory, Talion and Partners Inc.)
Plaintiff

v.

Ebborsnam
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF

On August 18th, 2026, the Defendant posted an auction for two elytras. On August 19th, the Plaintiff
placed the winning bid of $4,000. The Defendant confirmed to the Plaintiff that the Plaintiff won the auction,
further promising to send the two elytras following the Plaintiff’s payment of the $4,000 bid. Following
the Plaintiff's payment, the Defendant did not send the two elytras. The Defendant’s conduct constitutes
both Breach of Contract and Failure to Deliver Goods and Services, under Part VI § (1) and (4) of the
Redmont Civil Code Act.
Click to expand...

I. PARTIES
1. MegaMango800 (Plaintiff)
2. Ebborsnam (Defendant)

II. FACTS
1. On August 18th, 2026, the Defendant created an auction for two elytras. (P-001)
2. On August 19th, 2026, the Plaintiff posted the winning bid of $4,000. (P-002)
3. On August 20th, 2026, the Defendant confirmed that the Plaintiff had won the auction. (P-002)
4. On August 27th, 2026, the Defendant reaffirmed his promise to give the items to the Plaintiff (P-003)
5. On September 7th, 2026, the DOC posted a notice of the Defendants failure to deliver the auctioned item. (P-004)

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. Breach of Contract (RCCA Part VI § 1)
Breach of Contract, as defined by Part VI § 1(a) of the RCCA, occurs when an individual
fails to perform obligations under a valid and enforceable contract without lawful excuse.
Click to expand...
Under § 4 of the Contracts Act, a contract requires each of the following elements: offer, acceptance, consideration, intent, and capacity. Each of these elements is present in this instance. The Defendant posting the auction is a clear offer, the Plaintiff placing a bid would be acceptance, the $4,000 from the Plaintiff and the two elytras from the Defendant would be classified as consideration, intent is apparent given the context of this being a deliberately posted auction and an intentionally placed bid, and there is no apparent reason to doubt the capacity of either party to enter into this content. The Defendant has repeatedly shown their understanding of the terms, most notably through his vow to deliver the items in a timely manner. This establishes that a valid and enforceable contract was, in fact, formed. The Defendant's breach of the contract would be the other required element for Breach of Contract. The Defendant has admitted to being unable to deliver the elytra within the expected time period, which clearly establishes a breach.

2. Failure to Deliver Goods and Services (RCCA Part VI § 4)
Part VI § 4(a) of the RCCA defines Failure to Deliver Goods or Services as occurring when a person:
fails without lawful excuse to deliver goods or services that they have agreed to supply under a valid transaction or contract.
Click to expand...
This requires three primary elements: a failure to deliver goods, a valid contract, and the lack of a lawful excuse. Both the validity of the contract and the failure to deliver goods have been established above. A lawful excuse has not been communicated by the Defendant, nor have attempts been made to mitigate the harm.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. A Specific Performance order requiring the Defendant to promptly deliver the two elytras to the Plaintiff, under Claim 1: Failure to Deliver Goods and Services. In the alternative, should the Specific Performance order fail to be granted by the Court or be otherwise made impossible, the Plaintiff seeks $4,000 in Compensatory Damages
2. $3,000 in Legal Fees, the minimum permitted sum under Part III § 7 of the RCCA, awarded to Theory, Talion and Partners Inc.

V. EVIDENCE
1789796285495.png
1789796295340.png
1789796304314.png
1789796311546.png


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 19th day of September 2026


@CreeperTD shall serve as the Lead Counsel for this case, with @00f3 serving as Co-counsel.
 
1789833632155.png
 

Writ of Summons


@Ebborsnam is required to appear before the District Court in the case of MegaMango800 v. Ebborsnam [2026] DCR 170.​

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.

 
Defendant failed to appear.

Noting Defendant's prolonged absence from Redmont, the Court will continue in an inquest. See Rule 3.6.1 of the Court Rules & Procedures.

The deadline to file a Motion to Vacate Default shall be set 7 days from now, the 2nd of October 2026 pursuant to Rule 3.6.3.

The following is the structure of the inquest proceeding:
a) discovery in full, unless Plaintiff moves to end it early;
b) witness testimony; and
c) a legal brief submitted by Plaintiff.

Discovery is open for 5 days.
 
Ebborsnam said:
Sorry, but I missed the time to respond, what am I supposed to do now?
Click to expand...
Johnes said:
Defendant failed to appear.

Noting Defendant's prolonged absence from Redmont, the Court will continue in an inquest. See Rule 3.6.1 of the Court Rules & Procedures.

The deadline to file a Motion to Vacate Default shall be set 7 days from now, the 2nd of October 2026 pursuant to Rule 3.6.3.

The following is the structure of the inquest proceeding:
a) discovery in full, unless Plaintiff moves to end it early;
b) witness testimony; and
c) a legal brief submitted by Plaintiff.

Discovery is open for 5 days.
Click to expand...
All is to be found here.
 

Motion


IN THE DISTRICT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO VACATE DEFAULT

The defence moves to vacate default and proceed with this trial as normal. I acknowledge that I was late to respond and I apologize, as your honor mentioned, I've been taking a long break from Democracycraft and when I returned, I suddenly saw this message, I did not knowingly evade the deadline to respond.

 
Ebborsnam said:

Motion


IN THE DISTRICT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO VACATE DEFAULT

The defence moves to vacate default and proceed with this trial as normal. I acknowledge that I was late to respond and I apologize, as your honor mentioned, I've been taking a long break from Democracycraft and when I returned, I suddenly saw this message, I did not knowingly evade the deadline to respond.

Click to expand...
The Court grants this motion. Default is hereby vacated. Discovery shall be paused until Defendant posts their answer, which is due 48 hours from now.
 
Your honor, the Plaintiff has no additional evidence or witnesses to submit at this time. As such, we wish to end Discovery early and move straight to the Legal Brief.
 

Brief


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
LEGAL BRIEF

I. Introduction
Your honor, this case is far from a complex one. There is not a tangle of intersecting obligations, nor is there a series of technicalities. There is a single contract, formed between the Plaintiff and the Defendant. The Plaintiff fulfilled their end of the contract, while the Defendant has completely failed to perform their duty. As a result of this, the Plaintiff has suffered pecuniary harm that this court has the power to redress.

II. The Contract
On August 18th, 2026, the Defendant created an auction in the official marketplace channel of the DemocracyCraft Discord. The next day, the Plaintiff placed a winning bid of $4,000. Following a confirmation from the Defendant that the auction had concluded—with the Plaintiff’s bid having won—the Plaintiff paid $4,000 to the Defendant. This situation sets up a blatantly valid and enforceable contract under the Contracts Act. Several factors lead to the conclusion that this was a legally valid contract. Firstly, the Department of Commerce’s Auction Policy expressly states that every bid is a legally binding contract. In addition to this, it has been previously established in the DCR that #marketplace auction bids form legally binding contracts (see Superwoops v. Trentrick_Lamar [2026] DCR 18). Finally, each of the five elements of a legally binding contract have been met in this instance.

Offer. The Defendant posting the auction for the two elytras, and the Plaintiff’s subsequent bid on the aforementioned auction, establish a clear offer for a contract.

Acceptance. The Defendant had expressly accepted the winning bid of the Plaintiff (P-002).

Consideration. The consideration for both parties in this contract is simple. The Defendant gives two elytras to the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff gives $4,000 to the Defendant.

Intent. By the nature of opening an auction in the marketplace channel, and by the nature of placing a bid, intent has been duly established.

Capacity. The Auction Rules, set out by the Department of Commerce’s auction policy, require both the individual running the auction and the individual bidders to have at least six hours of playtime. This meets the legal threshold to be considered an Active Player under the Activity Act. Additionally, the FCR found in Dimitre977 v. kesballo [2025] FCR 6 that a player who has not yet accrued enough playtime to be considered legally active lacks the capacity to enter a contract. As both individuals participated in the auction, it follows that they both had at least six hours of playtime on the date of the bid; therefore, neither individuals lacked capacity to enter the contract.

III. Breach of Contract
As it has been established that a legally valid contract was formed between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, establishing a breach of this contract is the next requirement for establishing Breach of Contract. Breach of Contract, as defined by the RCCA Part VI § 1, requires both a valid and enforceable contract and a failure to perform obligations. The Defendant has failed to produce the two elytras for the Plaintiff. The Auction Policy of the Department of Commerce—the governing rule for #marketplace auctions—requires delivery of the auctioned items within 72 hours of the winning bid being paid. This period has long since elapsed. Additionally, the Department of Commerce made note of the Defendants failure to supply the items (P-004). As such, it is safe to state that the Defendant failed to perform the obligations under this contract, of which the validity was established above.

IV. Failure to Deliver Goods and Services
Failure to Deliver Goods and Services, as defined by Part VI § 4(a) of the RCCA, occurs when an individual

fails without lawful excuse to deliver goods or services that they have agreed to supply under a valid transaction or contract.
Click to expand...
Both the validity of the contract and the failure to deliver goods have been established above. In addition, the Defendant has not communicated to the Plaintiff a lawful excuse that would justify the extent of the delay.

V. Damages
The Plaintiff seeks for the court to award a Specific Performance order for the delivery of the two elytras. This remedy is established in the RCCA Part VI § 4. The Plaintiff also requests in the alternative, should the relief of a Specific Performance order fail to be granted, that the court instead awards $4,000 in restitution. This damage is absolutely necessary in order to remedy the Plaintiff’s loss.

The only other award requested by the Plaintiff is that of Legal Fees. The Plaintiff requests the minimum amount permitted to be awarded under Part III § 7 of the RCCA, paid to Theory, Talion and Partners to compensate for the time and effort put into the case.

VI. Conclusion
As these facts have not been disputed by the Defendant (due to their delinquency in regards to the court’s deadlines), the Plaintiff wishes for the court to base a verdict off of both the facts and legal arguments that the Plaintiff has submitted thus far.

 
00f3 said:

Brief


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
LEGAL BRIEF

I. Introduction
Your honor, this case is far from a complex one. There is not a tangle of intersecting obligations, nor is there a series of technicalities. There is a single contract, formed between the Plaintiff and the Defendant. The Plaintiff fulfilled their end of the contract, while the Defendant has completely failed to perform their duty. As a result of this, the Plaintiff has suffered pecuniary harm that this court has the power to redress.

II. The Contract
On August 18th, 2026, the Defendant created an auction in the official marketplace channel of the DemocracyCraft Discord. The next day, the Plaintiff placed a winning bid of $4,000. Following a confirmation from the Defendant that the auction had concluded—with the Plaintiff’s bid having won—the Plaintiff paid $4,000 to the Defendant. This situation sets up a blatantly valid and enforceable contract under the Contracts Act. Several factors lead to the conclusion that this was a legally valid contract. Firstly, the Department of Commerce’s Auction Policy expressly states that every bid is a legally binding contract. In addition to this, it has been previously established in the DCR that #marketplace auction bids form legally binding contracts (see Superwoops v. Trentrick_Lamar [2026] DCR 18). Finally, each of the five elements of a legally binding contract have been met in this instance.

Offer. The Defendant posting the auction for the two elytras, and the Plaintiff’s subsequent bid on the aforementioned auction, establish a clear offer for a contract.

Acceptance. The Defendant had expressly accepted the winning bid of the Plaintiff (P-002).

Consideration. The consideration for both parties in this contract is simple. The Defendant gives two elytras to the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff gives $4,000 to the Defendant.

Intent. By the nature of opening an auction in the marketplace channel, and by the nature of placing a bid, intent has been duly established.

Capacity. The Auction Rules, set out by the Department of Commerce’s auction policy, require both the individual running the auction and the individual bidders to have at least six hours of playtime. This meets the legal threshold to be considered an Active Player under the Activity Act. Additionally, the FCR found in Dimitre977 v. kesballo [2025] FCR 6 that a player who has not yet accrued enough playtime to be considered legally active lacks the capacity to enter a contract. As both individuals participated in the auction, it follows that they both had at least six hours of playtime on the date of the bid; therefore, neither individuals lacked capacity to enter the contract.

III. Breach of Contract
As it has been established that a legally valid contract was formed between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, establishing a breach of this contract is the next requirement for establishing Breach of Contract. Breach of Contract, as defined by the RCCA Part VI § 1, requires both a valid and enforceable contract and a failure to perform obligations. The Defendant has failed to produce the two elytras for the Plaintiff. The Auction Policy of the Department of Commerce—the governing rule for #marketplace auctions—requires delivery of the auctioned items within 72 hours of the winning bid being paid. This period has long since elapsed. Additionally, the Department of Commerce made note of the Defendants failure to supply the items (P-004). As such, it is safe to state that the Defendant failed to perform the obligations under this contract, of which the validity was established above.

IV. Failure to Deliver Goods and Services
Failure to Deliver Goods and Services, as defined by Part VI § 4(a) of the RCCA, occurs when an individual

Both the validity of the contract and the failure to deliver goods have been established above. In addition, the Defendant has not communicated to the Plaintiff a lawful excuse that would justify the extent of the delay.

V. Damages
The Plaintiff seeks for the court to award a Specific Performance order for the delivery of the two elytras. This remedy is established in the RCCA Part VI § 4. The Plaintiff also requests in the alternative, should the relief of a Specific Performance order fail to be granted, that the court instead awards $4,000 in restitution. This damage is absolutely necessary in order to remedy the Plaintiff’s loss.

The only other award requested by the Plaintiff is that of Legal Fees. The Plaintiff requests the minimum amount permitted to be awarded under Part III § 7 of the RCCA, paid to Theory, Talion and Partners to compensate for the time and effort put into the case.

VI. Conclusion
As these facts have not been disputed by the Defendant (due to their delinquency in regards to the court’s deadlines), the Plaintiff wishes for the court to base a verdict off of both the facts and legal arguments that the Plaintiff has submitted thus far.

Click to expand...
Thank you, Court is in recess pending verdict.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top