Lawsuit: Adjourned PAlexander4th v. Liddell_oepKtP [2026] DCR 172

Status
Not open for further replies.
S

strawpants

Citizen
strawpants
strawpants
Barrister
Joined
Jul 21, 2026
Messages
3

Case Filing


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


Palexander4th
Plaintiff

v.

Liddell_oepKtP
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF

The defendant Liddell_oepKtP failed to fulfill his legal obligations to an agreed upon contract between me , Palexander4th, and him
Click to expand...

I. PARTIES
1. Palexander4th
2. Liddell_oepKtP

II. FACTS
1. on 08/04/2026, The Defendant agreed to a contract for a Vehicle lease offered by the plaintiff. (p-001)
2. The plaintiff owned the car in question.
3. The Defendant received the car on 08/04/2026.
4. The Defendant was permanently deported which made him unable to fulfill his legal obligations to the agreed upon contract (p-002).
5. The Defendant hasn’t returned the car or declared it lost, surpassing the deadline.
6. The Defendant hasn’t paid any of the fees or penalties stated in the contract, breaching it.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. Breach of contract
Section VI of the Redmont civil code act states:
1. Breach of Contract
Violation Type: Strict Liability
Remedy: No Fixed Remedy
A person commits a violation if the person:
(a) fails to perform obligations under a valid and enforceable contract without lawful excuse.
Click to expand...
The Defendant breached the Vehicle Lease & Rental Agreement by failure to return the Vehicle on the agreed upon time as stated in section 5 of the agreement and not declaring it lost

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. Compensatory damages: 2100 $ for the full value of the vehicle and the lost vehicle fee as in Section 4 of the VH&RA
2. Liquidated Damages: A late return penalty of 50$ per hour to be calculated at the end of trial, as stated in Section 5 of the VH&RA
3. 30% Legal Fees pursuant to the Redmont Civil Code Act Part III (7)

V. EVIDENCE
p-001.png
p-002.png
Proof of representation.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: 8th day of August 2026

 
Your Honor, I would like to include xVoltrix as co-counsel.
 

Motion


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGEMENT

The Defendant has been permanently banned. Plaintiff requests default judgment on all prayers for relief.

 
strawpants said:

Motion


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGEMENT

The Defendant has been permanently banned. Plaintiff requests default judgment on all prayers for relief.

Click to expand...
Granted.
Would you like to proceed with inquest or would you like the Court to rule on the complaint alone?
 

Verdict


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
PAlexander4th v. Liddell_oepKtP [2026] DCR 172

I. Summary of Complaint​

Plaintiff Palexander4th approached this Court seeking relief for an alleged breach of contract against Defendant Liddell_oepKtP.

Defendant was long deported, therefore the rest of the Complaint continued in default judgment.

II. Findings of Fact​

On the 4th of August, Plaintiff posted a contract to most likely Defendant’s DMs. Defendant agreed to lease Plaintiff’s vehicle for the rate of $15 per day. The same contract included clauses to protect Plaintiff from a potential damage to the vehicle or loss thereof.

Defendant agreed in writing to the contract proposed by typing “Yes I agree” in the DMs. No other relevant communication is seen in evidence.

Whilst the individual in the DMs presented is named “Keanu.”, the Court in its own search found that it was indeed Defendant.

III. Issue​

The primary question of this case is whether the formed contract was valid and whether Plaintiff is entitled to the damages requested.

IV. Rule​

All contracts, in order to be binding, must follow the statute Congress enacted and must contain five essential elements. See Contracts Act. Double Recovery is expressly prohibited. Redmont Civil Code Act, Part II § 7(13).

V. Analysis​

First we will begin with the question of whether the contract was valid. The Court must consider the five elements of forming a contract and whether it is in any way deficient. Prima facie the contract is valid, as there is a sufficient offer, acceptance and consideration. The offer came from Plaintiff by posting the contract, which included the exchange of material (in this case a rental agreement), and to which Defendant replied in the affirmative. The Court has no reason to suspect an absence of intent or capacity. Now we turn to the damages and relief requested.

Plaintiff requests $50 per every hour between the time the vehicle was supposed to be returned and the time the verdict is delivered in liquidated damages and $2100 in compensatory damages. The Court disagrees.

When looking at the contract, we find two applicable provisions to grant liquidated damages. The first one is in § 4 of the contract, the Lost or Stolen Vehicle clause, and the second is in § 5 of the contract, the Late Return Penalty clause. Plaintiff requests relief for both. This would constitute double recovery, which is prohibited. See Id. The Court finds that the former applies.

Defendant was perma deported within the rental period. Plaintiff cannot retrieve the vehicle and would logically the condition that the vehicle is lost. Therefore it is impermissible to grant both prayers, as it would grant relief for the same damage twice. The Court therefore declines to award liquidated damages in the matter Plaintiff requests. As for compensatory damages, the Court will award the market value agreed upon in the contract. There is no indication that the market value misrepresents the real value and both parties agreed on its concrete value.

VI. Order of the Court​

The Court rules in favor of Plaintiff, with a modified prayer for relief, and the Court orders as follows:
  • Defendant is liable to Plaintiff in the sum of $2000 in compensatory damages;
  • Defendant is liable to Plaintiff in the sum of $100 in liquidated damages; and
  • Defendant is liable to Plaintiff’s counsel in the sum of $3000.
The Court thanks everyone involved for their time.

So ordered,
Magistrate Johnes

 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top