Lawsuit: Pending Noadenmark v. Zombie_Bro_ [2026] DCR 37

[Noa]

Case Filing​

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


Noadenmark
Plaintiff

v.

Zombie_bro_
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF
Zombie_bro_ said he would pay 1050 if he was given a 1k loan he then said he would need 1k more and he didnt pay the last 1050 back


I. PARTIES
1. noadenmark

II. FACTS
1. Zombie_Bro_ was sent 2k
2. Zombie_Bro_ said he would pay back 2100
3. Zombie_Bro_ only paid half of the promised money back

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. The Defendant, Zombie_bro_, entered into a verbal loan agreement with the Plaintiff, Noadenmark, whereby the Plaintiff extended a total of $2,000 to the Defendant in exchange for a promised repayment of $2,100. The Defendant's failure to repay the full agreed amount constitutes a breach of contract under the laws of the Commonwealth of Redmont, as the Defendant received the full benefit of the loan but failed to fulfill their repayment obligation.
2. The Defendant's conduct may further constitute Fraud under the Commercial Standards Act, as the Defendant made representations regarding repayment that they knowingly or recklessly failed to honor, causing quantifiable financial harm to the Plaintiff in the amount of $1,050.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. $1,050 in compensatory damages, representing the outstanding unpaid balance of the agreed repayment of $2,100, of which only half was returned.



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: The 18th day of April 2026

 

[Muggy21]

Writ of Summons

@Zombie_Bro_ is required to appear before the District Court in the case of Noadenmark v. Zombie_Bro_ [2026] DCR 37

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.

This is a small claims action.

 

[Zombie_Bro_]

Hello!
I am currently ready for the court. I don't really understand how this works, but I was told to reply here when ready. I'm ready when you are.
-Zombie_Bro_

 

[Muggy21]

Hello!
I am currently ready for the court. I don't really understand how this works, but I was told to reply here when ready. I'm ready when you are.
-Zombie_Bro_

Since this is a small claims matter, i'm going to keep it very light.


@Zombie_Bro_

Please take 48 hours to respond to Noadenmark's complaint. You need not follow the format, just write effectively and direct your language to the Court.

 

[ToadKing]

Answer to Complaint

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

Noadenmark
Plaintiff

v.

Zombie_bro_
Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT​

1. AFFIRM
2. DENY The Defendant agreed to repay $1,050 in exchange for a loan of $1,000. The Defendant never agreed to repay $2,100.
3. DENY The Defendant repaid $1,050, fulfilling the full amount promised under the original agreement.

​

II. DEFENCES​

1. The contract was for $1,000, not $2,000​

Under Section 4 of the Contracts Act, a valid contract requires five elements: offer, acceptance, consideration, intent, and capacity. The evidence establishes that a contract was formed, but only in respect of a $1,000 loan repayable at $1,050.

Offer - Section 4(2)(a) defines an offer as "a clear and unequivocal communication expressing a party's willingness to enter into a contract." The Defendant stated in global chat: "guys i need like a 1k loan ill pay back 1050 in like 2m." This message identifies the precise sum to be loaned ($1,000), the precise sum to be repaid ($1,050), and the timeframe. It is a "clear and unequivocal" offer.

Acceptance - Section 4(2)(b) requires "a positive and unambiguous response to an offer... mirroring the terms of the offer." The chat log records the message "$1,000 has been sent to Zombie_Bro_" immediately following the Defendant's offer. By transmitting exactly the sum specified in the offer, the Plaintiff accepted its terms.

Consideration - Section 4(2)(c) requires "the exchange of something of value between parties." The Plaintiff provided $1,000; the Defendant promised $1,050 in return. Both constitute valid consideration.

Intent - Section 4(2)(d) requires that "parties must demonstrate a clear intention to create legal obligations." The Defendant's use of the word "loan" and the specification of a repayment amount and timeframe demonstrate a clear intent to be bound.

Capacity - Section 4(2)(e) is satisfied; both parties are active players on the server with over 6 hours of total playtime. (D-001, D-002)

The contract was therefore fully formed at the moment the $1,000 was sent, on the precise terms the Defendant offered: $1,000 loaned, $1,050 to be repaid. No other terms were agreed upon.

​

2. The second $1,000 transfer did not form part of any contract​

Following the first transfer, the Defendant requested further funds in chat. This second request contained no offer of repayment terms. Under Section 4(2)(a) of the Contracts Act, an offer must be "clear and unequivocal" as to its terms. A request for money without specifying repayment terms cannot constitute a valid contractual offer. Without a valid offer, no acceptance could mirror its terms per Section 4(2)(b), and no binding obligation to repay arose. The Defendant stated at the time of repayment: "you donated 1k extra to help me pay it back i never said it would add to the loan" - consistent with no contract having been formed over the second $1,000.

3. The Defendant performed their contractual obligations in full​

The chat log records "$1,050 has been received from Zombie_Bro_" - the exact sum promised under the contract. Under Section 9 of the Contracts Act, a contract may be terminated by "successful performance." The Defendant's obligation was discharged upon payment of $1,050. There has been no breach, and the Plaintiff's claim for compensatory damages is therefore without basis.

EVIDENCE​

Spoiler: D-001

Spoiler: D-002

By making this submission, I agree that 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 18th day of April 2026.

Case Filing

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
COUNTERCLAIM

Zombie_Bro_
Counterplaintiff (CPlaintiff)

v.

Noadenmark
Counterdefendant (CDefendant)

COMPLAINT
The CPlaintiff complains against the CDefendant as follows:

The CPlaintiff is countersuing due to the frivolous and baseless nature of this case. The CDefendant filed a "breach of contract" lawsuit claiming the CPlaintiff owes $1,050 in unpaid repayments, despite the CDefendant's own submitted evidence clearly showing the agreed terms were "$1,000 for $1,050" - an obligation the CPlaintiff fulfilled in full. Filing a lawsuit without reasonable basis, in the face of one's own contradicting evidence, constitutes abuse of legal process and has caused the CPlaintiff harm through the time and resources spent defending these unnecessary proceedings.

I. PARTIES​

1. Zombie_Bro_
2. Noadenmark

​

II. FACTS​

1. The CDefendant sent the CPlaintiff $1,000 following an offer in global chat to repay $1,050.
2. The CPlaintiff repaid $1,050 to the CDefendant, fulfilling the agreed terms in full.
3. The CDefendant's submission as evidence in this case confirms both the original offer of "$1,000 for $1,050" and the subsequent repayment of $1,050.
4. The CDefendant filed this lawsuit claiming the agreed repayment amount was $2,100, despite the evidence contradicting this claim.

​

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF​

1. Abuse of Legal Process​

Under Part XII, Section 2 of the Redmont Civil Code Act (RCCA), a person commits abuse of legal process where:

(a) initiates or pursues a legal claim in bad faith, for improper purposes, or without reasonable basis; and
(b) the claim causes harm to the defendant.

The CDefendant's evidence establishes that the contract was for a $1,000 loan in exchange for a $1,050 repayment. The CPlaintiff fulfilled that obligation exactly. There was no reasonable basis to bring this claim. Pursuing this action despite that evidence constitutes initiating a claim without a reasonable basis.

The CPlaintiff has suffered harm in the form of time and inconvenience spent defending proceedings that should never have been brought.

​

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF​

The CPlaintiff seeks the following from the CDefendant:

1. $10,000 in Punitive Damages pursuant to Part XII Section 2 of the RCCA (being 100 Civil Penalty Units), on the basis that filing a claim contradicted by the CDefendant's own evidence constitutes outrageous conduct under Part III Section 3(2)(b)(ii) and (iv) of the RCCA, being conduct the CDefendant knew or ought to have known would seriously inconvenience the CPlaintiff, and which involved dishonesty and bad faith in misrepresenting the agreed repayment terms.

2. Alternatively, $7,500 in Nominal Damages pursuant to Part III Section 4 of the RCCA, if the Court finds punitive damages are not warranted.

3. Legal fees at 30% of case value pursuant to Part III Section 7 of the RCCA

By making this submission, I agree that 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 18th day of April 2026.

Spoiler: Proof of Representation

 

[Muggy21]

The Complaint is a small claims action, the Counterclaim is NOT.

We will enter discovery for 5 days, ending on 4/23/26 @ 9pm EST.