Lawsuit: Adjourned OakRidge Community Bank v. XinmjirGamingHQ [2025] DCR 106

Status
Not open for further replies.

Closing Statement


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF REDMONT
CLOSING STATEMENT

Throughout the entirety of this case you have seen how the defendant had blatantly disregarded his contractual obligations to the plaintiff. It is clear that not only did the plaintiff fulfill their contractual obligations but granted the defendant leniency when it came to this and they still did not fulfill their contractual obligations. They willfully disobeyed and neglected their obligations despite many warnings from the plaintiff regarding delinquency and the owed payment.

By this it is apparent that the defendant had entered into the contract in bad faith with no intention of ever paying the plaintiff back. He has intentionally broken the requirement of good faith and fair dealing and should be punished as so.

Finally the defendants reckless actions have made it so that the plaintiff has been humiliated and has lost creditability within their customers and their financial products they offer.

We ask that the court finds the defendant liable for all counts brought upon them.

 
The Defendant (@Superwoops) is now given 72 hours (1/17/26 @ 1pm EST) to submit their Closing Statements.
 

Closing Statement


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CLOSING STATEMENT

Your honour,
I have not much else to say in this case. I believe my Opening Statement covers my arguments sufficiently. Furthermore, the Plaintiff's closing arguments have not addressed my arguments at all.

The Credit Standards Act exists for the reason of standardising loan relationships between debtors and creditors. The Plaintiff appears to have, more probably than not, violated this act. I only ask the Court to see the CSA as a reference or metric to measure contract ambiguity in this case and follow the intent of Congress when drafting the bill. I also ask the Court to take into consideration the Contracts Act and the need for unambiguous terms for an enforceable contract to exist.

The Plaintiff has also not justified why my client supposedly had "no intention of ever paying the plaintiff back", or justified humiliation damages.

I respectfully ask the Court to side with the Defendant on this issue.

 
The Court is now in recess pending a verdict.
 

Verdict

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OakRidge Community Bank v. XinmjirGamingHQ [2025] DCR 106

I. Plaintiff's Position
1. The Defendant signed a Loan Agreement with the Plaintiff, and by not repaying the stated amounts on time and after multiple notices, the Defendant is in breach of the contract.
2. The Defendant knew they could not repay and never intended to repay the owed amount to the Plaintiff.
3. The Plaintiff should be compensated for the time and effort put into drafting the loan agreement.
4. The Defendant is responsible for the humiliation of the Plaintiff, as the subsequent default of a bond securitized by this loan causes others “to have less faith in the stability of the bonds offered by the Plaintiff.”

II. Defendant's Position
1. The loan agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant was too ambiguous, making it unenforceable.

III. The Court's Opinion
On the claim of breach of contract
As defined in §4 of the Contracts Act, a valid contract is formed with an offer to enter the contract, an acceptance of said offer, consideration via the exchange of goods or services between the parties, an intent to create a valid contract, and the legal capacity to enter into a contract.

From the Loan Agreement, the element of acceptance is fulfilled through the signing of the contract by the Defendant, consideration exists through the lending of initial capital and promised repayment by the Defendant, the intent to create a valid contract being underpinned by “an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing” as stated in §12 of the Contracts Act, and the Defendant has the legal capacity to enter into this contract given their multiple days worth of playtime within Redmont.

However, the existence of a “clear and unequivocal” offer provided to Defendant by the Plaintiff is disputable, due to the use of ambiguous language such as “MPY”. While the term “MPY” is defined in the Loan Agreement as “Monthly Percentage Yield”, it was not explained further to the Defendant as to what that phrase means.

Critically, this term is used to describe the interest payable by the Defendant, where the requirements for definitions are governed by §4(1)(a) of the Credit Standards Act. In the act, key terms must be outlined via a stated “nominal rate of interest”, the “form of interest”, and the “variability of interest” (if applicable). The term “MPY” and its brief description fail to inform the reader of its “form of interest”, where the final calculated interest does not aid in its interpretation.

Additionally, the Loan Agreement states that “the borrower intends to borrow $20,000 from the lender for the duration of [time period]”, where it never explicitly states the length of the time period, further adding to the ambiguity of the contract.

Therefore, the Court finds that multiple sections of the contract create ambiguity that significantly hinders it from being a “clear and unequivocal” offer to the Defendant, thus rendering the Loan Agreement invalid and unenforceable. As the contract is invalid, the Plaintiff’s alleged breach of contract could not have taken place.

On the Defendant’s alleged lack of good faith and fair dealing
In their statements, the Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant “willfully disobeyed and neglected their obligations despite many warnings from the Plaintiff”. While the Plaintiff had issued numerous notices to the Defendant, the Court found that the relevant Loan Agreement was null and void; therefore, the Defendant did not have any contractual obligations to the Plaintiff.

In the absence of further evidence to support that the Defendant made actions in bad faith, it is more likely than not that there was no “outrageous conduct” made by the Defendant.

On the request for damages for creating the Contract
When looking specifically at compensatory damages, they can only be awarded given “proof of pecuniary loss, including compensation for harm to property, harm to earning capacity, and the creation of liabilities.” The Plaintiff has provided no evidence or witness testimony to substantiate their claim of “time and effort” spent on creating the contract as a pecuniary loss, and therefore, compensatory damages cannot be awarded.

On the supposed humiliation of the Plaintiff via a defaulted bond
As stated in earlier objections, the assertion that a bond sold by the Plaintiff was being securitized by the Defendant’s loan is baseless, due to the lack of details on any bonds (or their connection to the Defendant) at all. Therefore, the overarching claim that the Defendant had humiliated the Plaintiff by reducing their credibility to potential bondholders cannot be proven with the evidence presented.

IV. Decision
Accordingly, the Court rules in favour of the Defendant.

The Court thanks all parties for their time.

 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top