- Thread Author
- #1
Case Filing
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION
PileOfCorgis (Represented independently by NoMoreUno)
Plaintiff
v.
AmericanBozo
Defendant
COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff, PileOfCorgis, comes forward with the following complaint against AmericanBozo:
WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF
On 5/31/26, the plaintiff, PileOfCorgis, asked how one would go about finding an apartment in in-game chat. The plaintiff was contacted by the defendant, AmericanBozo, who offered the plaintiff- the plaintiff being, at the time, a new player, who had just joined the server for the first time- assistance in finding an apartment. The defendant found the plaintiff an apartment at rt-east05. This apartment was listed as being leased for $20.00 per 14 days, as per the for lease sign outside of the property. Upon arrival at the apartment, the realtor requested to be paid $175.00 for his services despite no previous agreement for payment being reached and no fees being disclosed upfront. As an oblivious player with perhaps an hour of playtime (and thus a player with little to no knowledge of how realty worked), the plaintiff paid the defendant the requested sum and was leased the apartment for 14 days, despite having paid a sum equivalent to 122.5 days of rent.
The plaintiff has not been refunded the $155.00 in excess payment. The defendant was contacted in regards to why such a sum was charged and did not respond.
I. PARTIES
1. PileOfCorgis (Plaintiff)
2. AmericanBozo (Defendant)
II. FACTS
1. The plaintiff was contacted by the defendant in response to an inquiry in general chat and was asked if the plaintiff was interested in realty services.
2. The plaintiff had joined the server for the first time this very same day and thus lacked basic knowledge of realty.
3. The plaintiff agreed to deal with the defendant with a maximum budget of $200.00, assuming that the budget was for solely the apartment and not for any realty fees.
4. Prior to payment, no agreement regarding paying the defendant had been made or even hinted at. The plaintiff was never referred to as the defendant’s client.
5. Upon arrival at the apartment, the defendant requested to be paid $175.00. While this was within the budget that the plaintiff had given the defendant, the sign outside of the apartment explicitly leased it for only $20.00, and no fee for the finding of an apartment had been disclosed.
6. Due to their unfamiliarity with the workings of realty, the plaintiff paid the defendant the requested sum.
7. Despite paying enough money to rent the property for 122 days, provided the rate given on the apartment sign was accurate, the plaintiff was only given 14 days of rent.
8. The defendant has not responded to inquiries regarding why such a sum was charged.
III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. Given the plaintiff’s low playtime, it is true that the plaintiff lacked the capacity to enter a formal contract; indeed, no contract of any kind was made beforehand. However, according to the Redmont Civil Code Act, contract torts apply to “violations arising from contractual relationships, financial transactions, commercial dealings, and consumer protection. “ As such, while no contract had been established beforehand, the exchange of money for a service:
1) allows the plaintiff to categorize themself as a consumer and
2) categorizes the event as a financial transaction.
As such all civil violations applicable to financial transactions and the protection of the consumer (the contract torts) are applicable to this case.
2. Misleading Conduct in Trade or Commerce is a contract tort defined as behavior that ”engages in conduct that is misleading, deceptive, or likely to mislead or deceive another person in connection with the promotion, sale, or supply of goods or services.“ The behavior of the defendant- namely, leading the Defendant to a property listed as $20.00 only to request a higher sum- sought to purposefully deceive the plaintiff, who lacked knowledge of proper realty pricing, into believing that $175.00 was the proper cost of the apartment. Nothing indicates that the price listed on the apartment’s sign was puffery, and the plaintiff exercised reasonable care to the extent of which they were capable, considering that they had just joined the server and thus had limited information in regards to the regular proceedings of realty.
3. Failure to Deliver Goods or Services is defined as where a person “fails without lawful excuse to deliver goods or services that they have agreed to supply under a valid transaction or contract.“ The plaintiff paid the defendant more than legally required for purchase of the apartment- in fact, taking the alleged rate of $20.00 for 14 days into consideration, the plaintiff should have been given more than a third-of-a-year's worth time in rent. However, the plaintiff was only given 14 days of time in rent. While no formal contract was made, a rate of $20.00 per 14 days can be rationally derived solely from the for lease notice outside of the apartment, and, given this rate, the plaintiff should have been given 122 days of lease. This amount of time was not supplied to the plaintiff, and thus the service the realtor offered was not delivered.
4. Loss of Enjoyment in Redmont describes “Situations in which an injured party loses, or has diminished, their ability to engage in certain activities in the way that the injured party did before the harm.“ While when taken at face value, a loss of $155.00 doesn’t seem to be exceedingly detrimental to one’s ability to engage in activities, it must be taken into consideration that the defendant had joined the server for the first time as of 5/31/26- which is the day the event occurred. A new player’s starting balance is $300 upon first joining the server, $600 upon receiving their first profession, and $900 upon obtaining a passport. The plaintiff, with under six hours of playtime, could not have obtained a passport, so their balance as of this event could not have exceeded $600 (in addition to any money they may have obtained with one hour of playtime; a sum that can reasonably be assumed to be trivial). An unexpected loss of $155.00 is equivalent to a loss of nearly 25% of the plaintiff’s net worth. The loss of such a significant chunk of money deprived the plaintiff of their ability to enjoy their starting balance, which they would have otherwise had full access to. In addition to this, as this was one of the plaintiff’s first transactions, this set the precedent that tradesmen were not to be trusted, thus robbing the plaintiff of their ability to fully engage in future trade with trust and confidence.
IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. Either $155.00 in recompense or an additional 108 days in rent, as allotted by specific performance as restitution under Failure to Deliver Goods or Services.
2. $12,500.00, as allotted by Misleading Conduct in Trade or Commerce.
3. $1,500.00 as consequential damage, as allotted by Loss of Enjoyment in Redmont.
4. $12,500, as allotted by Failure to Deliver Goods and Services.
5. Any other restitution that the court sees as right and just.
P-001: The status of the apartment as of 06/04/26 (still labeled as for lease), as well as the original price
P-002: Transaction history showing that the plaintiff did, in fact, pay the defendant $175.00
P-003: DMs showing that the defendant has not responded to any further inquiries about the apartment as of 6/04/26
P-004: The plaintiff's playtime as of 6/04/26. Plaintiff attests, under penalty of perjury, that as of 5/31/26, playtime was "an hour at most" and has since increased.
P-005: The amount of time that the plaintiff has been leased the apartment for (as of 6/04/26)
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 fourth day of June, 2026