Lawsuit: Adjourned Reppal v. EcoFinance [2024] FCR 77

Status
Not open for further replies.
ColonelKai

ColonelKai

Lawyer at Law
Supporter
5th Anniversary 4th Anniversary Grave Digger Change Maker
Colonel_Kai
Colonel_Kai
Solicitor
Joined
Jan 28, 2023
Messages
232
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION​


Reppal
Plaintiff
(Represented by MikamiLaw)

v.

EcoFinance
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF


I. PARTIES
1. Reppal
2. EcoFinance
3. Avaneesh2008 (Representative of EcoFinance to Plaintiff)

II. FACTS
1. Plaintiff signs a contract with EcoFinance, and gains access to a credit card which allows him a 10% chargeback for purchases in Boeing.
2. Plaintiff takes out loans or accrews credit card debt from the following companies or entities:
S-Capital : $120,000 (20240506)
EcoFinance (CC) : 40,000 (20240506)
Atreides (CC) : 50,000 (20240506)
3. Plaintiff uses the card to its max limit 3 times, buying Boeing credit, repaying the charges which allows him to refresh his credit limit.
4. EcoFinance illegally terminates the contract, and undoes all of the transactions.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. Breach of Contract under Contracts Law

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. 20,000$ in compensatory damages for the loss of potential revenue as reliant on the upholding of the agreement.
2. Additional 30% of all winnings as legal fees to MikamiLaw LLC.

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 24th day of May, 2024
 
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION​

1716480653894.png
 
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION​

My apologies your honour, due to a technical issue the written statements seem to have been left out. I would like to please advise the following as the written statement.

Honourable Court, we bring forward a case today to the federal courts due to a violation of the contract law as we will prove evidently throughout the case. The plaintiff has created, with the draws of the benefits and potential revenue, a business relationship with the defendant. A relationship in which the defendant has failed to uphold. This failure has caused the plaintiff a material harm, as well as much more. The case is simple, and should be cut and dry.
 
1716589830394.png

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
WRIT OF SUMMONS

@Avaneesh2008 is required to appear before the Federal Court in the case of Reppal v. EcoFinance.

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 Information - Court Rules and Procedures, including the option of an in-game trial should both parties request one.​
 
Motion to Dismiss: Lack of Claim

Your Honor,

The plaintiff argues that the defendant breached the contract but fails to mention any specifics of the contract including what clauses the plaintiff argues is breached and how the defendant allegedly breached them. As the defendant failed to provide reasoning or an explanation for any of the claims for relief, the plaintiff has a lack of claim in this court case.

In addition, the plaintiff requested $20,000 in compensatory damages without any reasoning or explanation for how the defendant’s actions caused damages to the plaintiff. As none of claims in the complaint gave any argument as to what the plaintiff did to have breached the contract, we wish for the court to dismiss the case with prejudice.
 
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION​

Your honour, may I respond to the motion?
 
Your Honor, I have been retained by Reppal, the Plaintiff, and will be litigating this case on behalf of the Plaintiff.

With that, I would like to motion the court to allow me to post an edit to the original complaint because, as opposing counsel correctly pointed out, it was not fully fleshed out — and my client has the right to proper and thorough legal representation.

Proof of representation:
1716750685681.jpeg
 
Admin23 said:
Your Honor, I have been retained by Reppal, the Plaintiff, and will be litigating this case on behalf of the Plaintiff.

With that, I would like to motion the court to allow me to post an edit to the original complaint because, as opposing counsel correctly pointed out, it was not fully fleshed out — and my client has the right to proper and thorough legal representation.

Proof of representation:
View attachment 43711
Click to expand...
You may, please post an updated claim within 48 hours. After which the Defense may redo their Motion to Dismiss or declare they don't wish to, they'll have 48 hours after the updated claim.
 
ColonelKai said:
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION​


Reppal
Plaintiff
(Represented by MikamiLaw)

v.

EcoFinance
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF


I. PARTIES
1. Reppal
2. EcoFinance
3. Avaneesh2008 (Representative of EcoFinance to Plaintiff)

II. FACTS
1. Plaintiff signs a contract with EcoFinance, and gains access to a credit card which allows him a 10% chargeback for purchases in Boeing.
2. Plaintiff takes out loans or accrews credit card debt from the following companies or entities:
S-Capital : $120,000 (20240506)
EcoFinance (CC) : 40,000 (20240506)
Atreides (CC) : 50,000 (20240506)
3. Plaintiff uses the card to its max limit 3 times, buying Boeing credit, repaying the charges which allows him to refresh his credit limit.
4. EcoFinance illegally terminates the contract, and undoes all of the transactions.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. Breach of Contract under Contracts Law

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. 20,000$ in compensatory damages for the loss of potential revenue as reliant on the upholding of the agreement.
2. Additional 30% of all winnings as legal fees to MikamiLaw LLC.

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 24th day of May, 2024
Click to expand...

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF
I entered into a binding credit card contract with EcoFinance on May 4th of this year. I tried to use this card at Boeing because of the benefits, and I was denied service because my card was cancelled. In the contract, nowhere did it allow EcoFinance to cancel. Avaneesh2008, the CEO of EcoFinance tried to force me to agree to a new contract. When I did not sign the new contract, he cancelled the original contract, but he edited my original contract to allow him to cancel.

I. PARTIES
1. Reppal
2. EcoFinance

II. FACTS
1. The Plaintiff signed a Boeing Mile credit card contract with the Defendant on May 4, 2024. This credit card's benefits included (See Exhibit A for unedited contract):
- a $200 Boeing Casino Credit; and
- 10% cashback on all purchases at Boeing.
2. The Plaintiff attempted to use the Boeing Mile credit card three times to purchase a total of $60,000 in Casino Credits at Boeing. After each purchase of $20,000 Casino Credits, the Plaintiff repaid the credit card as to not go over the $20,000 limit listed under Credit Card Terms in the Boeing Mile credit card contract. All of these transactions were allowable under the Boeing Mile credit card contract.
3. The Defendant illegally edited the Boeing Mile credit card contract on May 17, 2024, after it was previously signed. See Exhibit B.
4. The Defendant cancelled the Boeing Mile credit card contract without any legal ability to do so. There was no clause that allowed EcoFinance, the Defendant, to cancel the credit card contract. This is a material breach of contract. The edit on May 17, 2024 added verbiage to allow EcoFinance to cancel the Boeing Mile credit card contract. EcoFinance illegally cancelled the contract one minute after the illegal edit. The illegal edit was at 6:30 PM on May 17, 2024, and EcoFinance illegally cancelled the contract at 6:31 PM on May 17, 2024. See Exhibit B and C.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. Breach of Contract under Contracts Law as the Boeing Mile credit card contract is still valid and should be treated as still valid.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. $34,000 in compensatory damages for the loss of the benefits
2. $50,000 in punitive damages due to the fact that we cannot allow individuals, especially one of the largest financial institutions in Redmont, to get away with editing a contract after it was signed and trying to enforce that edit.
2. 30% ($25,200) of legal fees to Admin23.

EXHIBIT A (Link of original signed Boeing Mile credit card contract)


EXHIBIT B (Underlined is the illegally added verbiage, and date of edit is shown)
1716839314541.png

1716839375669.png


EXHIBIT C
1716839844482.png

1716839862522.png

1716839875492.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 27th day of May, 2024
 
Your Honor, I ask that we move on to either response to complaint or opening statements.
 
Avaneesh2008 said:
Motion to Dismiss: Lack of Claim

Your Honor,

The plaintiff argues that the defendant breached the contract but fails to mention any specifics of the contract including what clauses the plaintiff argues is breached and how the defendant allegedly breached them. As the defendant failed to provide reasoning or an explanation for any of the claims for relief, the plaintiff has a lack of claim in this court case.

In addition, the plaintiff requested $20,000 in compensatory damages without any reasoning or explanation for how the defendant’s actions caused damages to the plaintiff. As none of claims in the complaint gave any argument as to what the plaintiff did to have breached the contract, we wish for the court to dismiss the case with prejudice.
Click to expand...
Due to the Plaintiff never giving a response to the Motion to Dismiss, I will rule on this.
This Motion to Dismiss is overruled as evidence is provided within the amendment (which was allowed by the Court) of the original complaint. As for the latter half of the argument, that can be argued throughout the progression of the case to not grant the $20,000 in compensatory damages.

With that we will be moving into Opening Statements, the Plaintiff has 72 hours to provide their Opening Statement.
 
RelaxedGV said:
Due to the Plaintiff never giving a response to the Motion to Dismiss, I will rule on this.
This Motion to Dismiss is overruled as evidence is provided within the amendment (which was allowed by the Court) of the original complaint. As for the latter half of the argument, that can be argued throughout the progression of the case to not grant the $20,000 in compensatory damages.

With that we will be moving into Opening Statements, the Plaintiff has 72 hours to provide their Opening Statement.
Click to expand...
Actually what about our response to complaint?
 
We’ve exceeded the deadline for the answer to complaint
 
Ah my apologies I thought it said 72 hours and I was gonna do it today, I had work yesterday. I therefore ask for a brief extension.
 
It has been over 72 hours since the deadline was set.
 
Alexander P. Love said:
I was awaiting permission from the presiding officer to post.
Click to expand...

With the Resignation of Former Chief Justice RelaxedGV i will be presiding over this case, you have 12 hours to post before we move on.
 
The defense can neither confirm nor deny any of these facts at this time.

The defense, through a thorough examination of the facts and evidence presented in this case, will convince the Court of EcoFinance’s lack of liability for any of the claims presented. We will outline how no breach of contract occurred and that the plaintiff is not entitled to any prayers for relief as there were no damages. During discovery, the defense will reveal the truth of the situation to the Court and present arguments during the case in chief.
 
Alexander P. Love said:
The defense can neither confirm nor deny any of these facts at this time.

The defense, through a thorough examination of the facts and evidence presented in this case, will convince the Court of EcoFinance’s lack of liability for any of the claims presented. We will outline how no breach of contract occurred and that the plaintiff is not entitled to any prayers for relief as there were no damages. During discovery, the defense will reveal the truth of the situation to the Court and present arguments during the case in chief.
Click to expand...

Mr. Love i strongly encourage you to use prescribed court formats in the future as it is beneficial to everyone. We will now move into a 7 Day Discovery period.
 
SumoMC said:
Mr. Love i strongly encourage you to use prescribed court formats in the future as it is beneficial to everyone. We will now move into a 7 Day Discovery period.
Click to expand...
Your Honor, are we skipping opening statements?
 
My apologies, your Honor. I retract my question as I realize that was in error.
 
I do not know if this is considered evidence as this would be considered public knowledge, however I would like to bring to the court’s attention the fact that EcoFinance is shutting down and liquidating.

If the court does recognize this as evidence, this would be Exhibit D:

IMG_4316.jpeg
 
The Plaintiff wishes to end Discovery early, your Honor.
 
Does the Defense agree?
 
With both side not in agreement, the discovery deadline is still in effect.
 
Discovery has now ended, Plaintiff has 72 Hours to submit their Opening Statement.
 
SumoMC said:
Discovery has now ended, Plaintiff has 72 Hours to submit their Opening Statement.
Click to expand...
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OPENING STATEMENT


Your Honor, this case is one of fraudulent business practices. As laid out in Exhibit A, B, and C, the Defendant entered into a legally binding contract with the Plaintiff. Then, the Defendant edited the contract after it was signed in order to allow the Defendant to cancel the contract, which they were previously unable to do, per the terms of the contract. Then, the Defendant breached the contract which they signed by no longer providing the credit card service that they had signed a contract for in order to provide.

As opposing counsel stated, they cannot deny these facts.

Normally, during a breach of contract lawsuit, the Plaintiff should push for equitable remedies, such as specific performance. I’m this case, however, that is not within the Plaintiff’s toolbox as the Defendant is liquidating and is no longer in operation (as shown in Exhibit D). When specific performance is not an available remedy in a civil case, monetary damages are the primary remedy in resolving a breach of contract lawsuit. That is why the Plaintiff requested monetary damages instead of specific performance.
 
The defense now as 72 Hours to present their Opening Statement.
 
Your honor, work has been hectic recently, I kindly ask for a 24 hour extension.
 
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OPENING STATEMENT

Your Honor, the plaintiff is wrong, and we will outline why thoroughly in the closing statement. Thank you.
 
With now witnesses being submitted during Discovery, we will now move into closing statements. The Plaintiff has 72 Hours to submit their closing remarks.
 
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CLOSING STATEMENT

Your Honor,

This case clearly demonstrates fraudulent business practices by the Defendant, EcoFinance. The Plaintiff signed a Boeing Mile credit card contract with the Defendant on May 4, 2024. As outlined in Exhibit A, the benefits of this credit card included a $200 Boeing Casino Credit and 10% cashback on all purchases at Boeing.

The Plaintiff attempted to use the Boeing Mile credit card three times to purchase a total of $60,000 in Casino Credits at Boeing. After each $20,000 purchase, the Plaintiff repaid the credit card to avoid exceeding the $20,000 limit, as specified in the Boeing Mile credit card contract. All these transactions were permissible under the terms of the contract.

However, on May 17, 2024, the Defendant illegally edited the Boeing Mile credit card contract after it had been signed, as detailed in Exhibit B. This unauthorized edit included verbiage allowing EcoFinance to cancel the contract, a provision not present in the original agreement. Immediately following this illegal edit, at 6:31 PM on May 17, 2024, EcoFinance canceled the contract, constituting a material breach. Exhibit B and C clearly illustrate this sequence of events.

Your Honor, the Defendant's actions represent a clear and deliberate breach of contract. They entered into a legally binding agreement with the Plaintiff and subsequently altered it unilaterally to facilitate an unjust cancellation. The Defendant had no legal basis for this cancellation, making their actions both fraudulent and a clear violation of the contract terms.

As opposing counsel has conceded, these facts are irrefutable. Typically, in a breach of contract lawsuit, the Plaintiff would seek equitable remedies such as specific performance. However, this remedy is not viable in this case because the Defendant is liquidating and is no longer in operation, as demonstrated in Exhibit D. When specific performance is unattainable, monetary damages become the primary remedy to resolve a breach of contract.

Therefore, the Plaintiff has rightfully requested monetary damages instead of specific performance. The Plaintiff seeks appropriate compensation for the breach of contract and the fraudulent actions perpetrated by the Defendant.

Thank you, Your Honor.
 
Defense has 72 hours to submit their Opening statement's.
 
Your honor, I request a 12 hour extension due to the timing of my work shift tomorrow, I need to finish writing the closing still.
 
Your Honor, this is excessive. The time set to post court documents is clear, and extensions should be requested relatively sparingly. They should not be requested every time something is required to be posted. This is a waste of the court’s precious time.
 
Admin23 said:
Your Honor, this is excessive. The time set to post court documents is clear, and extensions should be requested relatively sparingly. They should not be requested every time something is required to be posted. This is a waste of the court’s precious time.
Click to expand...
Objection, your honor. Breach of procedure, opposing counsel isn’t permitted a response for extension requests.

The closing is ready, I am just awaiting permission now so it may be posted.
 
You have 12 hours to post
 
May it please the Court,

Your honor, the contract was not violated. Only, there was a simple and easily rectified misunderstanding. The contract would never be void, it couldn't be voided as the plaintiff argues, even if it was actually edited then terminated. The contract would remain extant the entire time the plaintiff sat and whined about it, because if the defendant couldn’t terminate it, then it wouldn’t be terminated. This frivolous lawsuit is only a money grab. The plaintiff lacks the evidence to show any damages as a result of believing they couldn't use the credit card. No proof of attempting to use the credit card was provided, nor any causative damages as a result thereof. Even if there were supposed damages, there are far too many people willing to lend money at an affordable rate for this to have caused anything more than a two second inconvenience. Two seconds is valued at approximately 33 cents ($100 for a 10 minute false arrest is $10/minute, divided by 60 is 16.67 cents per second), so the defense is willing to pay for that.

There was no outrageous conduct, only a misunderstanding. There was no malicious intent behind the mistake, yet another thing the plaintiff failed to prove in this case even to the standard of a balance of probabilities (or preponderance of the evidence). Furthermore, there is no proof that the contract was materially edited, only that it was edited. The defense asserts that an edit can be anything including fixing a piece of punctuation or a miscapitalized letter, which do not constitute a material change of the contract. Exhibit A appears to be defunct, going to show the weak evidence the plaintiff possesses. The contract clearly states that EcoFinance can terminate the agreement based on the evidence provided. No wrongdoing has occurred.

This case is a wash no matter how you chalk it. Was it materially edited? The plaintiff cannot prove it was. Even if it was, no damages occurred. The plaintiff asks for excessive fees, demonstrating this case's frivolity. Someone got greedy, so they contrived a load of horse manure. I ask the Court to find the defendant not liable on all claims and to grant the defense counsel, Dragon Law Firm, $25,200 in legal fees as that is 30% of what was requested (or no less than $5,000 as legally mandated by the Legal Damages Act). Thank you.
 
Last edited:
Court is in Recess pending verdict
 

Verdict

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
VERDICT
Reppal v. EcoFinance [2024] FCR 77

I. PLAINTIFF'S POSITION
1. The defendant unlawfully edited the contract without the consent of the plaintiff to give them the power to cancel the contract at any time.
2. The Defendant tried to get them to sign new terms, when they did not they canceled the original contract.

II. DEFENDANT'S POSITION
1. The defendant claims that the plaintiff has no proof that a the contract was edited to add the severability clause, only that the contract was edited after it was signed.
2. If they did do that, no damages occurred to the plaintiff.


III. THE COURT OPINION
1. While it appears that the contract was edited by the defendant on May 17th, which is after the date the contract was signed by the plaintiff, there is no way of knowing what was edited.
2. It is clear that they defendant did not want to admit that the contract was edited as can be seen when they were questioned by the plaintiff and they denied the accusation. It is not this courts place to speculate on what was edited, only to use what was proven. When it comes to this case, nothing was proven other then a edit was made on the 17th of the March.


IV. DECISION
1. The Federal Court of Redmont hereby rules in favor of the defense. There is no way to know what part of the contract was edited and without a screenshot of the contract prior to the edit, the court can not in good faith rule that the contract had no severability clause.
2. The Plaintiff failed to prove that that portion of the contract was edited and that damages were incurred.
3. The Court will be awarding nothing to either party.

The Federal Court thanks all involved.

 
The Supreme Court in their infinite wisdom, has decided to reopen this case and strike my original verdict. Given the fact that i do no agree to their decision, i will be recusing myself from this case.

Court is in recess pending a new Judge/Justice.
 
My deepest apologies to the parties of this case for the presiding officer's lack of professionalism.

I'm sure Judge @Unseatedduke1 will have a verdict shortly.
 
Dartanboy said:
My deepest apologies to the parties of this case for the presiding officer's lack of professionalism.

I'm sure Judge @Unseatedduke1 will have a verdict shortly.
Click to expand...
Your honor, the Supreme Court cannot just toss a verdict and have someone else issue one.
 
Good evening, everyone. As I have taken over this case, we will proceed to the second set of closing statements as requested by the SCR. The Plaintiff has 48 hours to deliver their statement.
 
Unseatedduke1 said:
@Admin23 Please also provide an updated link to EXHIBIT A
Click to expand...
Objection, your honor. Breach of procedure. As we cannot verify what was originally in exhibit A, he could submit anything. This would allow him to submit anything after discovery. The plaintiff should have protected their evidence in the first place. I motion to block the resubmission of Exhibit A.
 
Overruled. I need to see the evidence. While I agree that they should do better next time, I don't believe they are at fault for the link not working now.
 
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION FOR RELIEF​


First, I would like to thank the court for its decision to reopen this case.

Your Honor, this procedure is a bit extraordinary, so please forgive me for filing a motion that does not exist within Redmont Courts’ Motions Guide. I have not found any Redmont law or court procedure written to help resolve this. I’m sure this will raise an objection from opposing counsel; however, I ask that the court hear me out.

I would like to explain the Plaintiff’s predicament to the court.

The link in question was the only evidence I had to show the unedited contract in its original form. This link was functional when the complaint was submitted to this court.

I would like to bring the court’s attention to the fact that neither of the two presiding judges nor opposing counsel raised any issues with the link. Both RelaxedGV and SumoMC had the opportunity to examine Exhibit A, and neither stated that they found fault with the link. Even if we assume that presiding judges might not look at the evidence until the last minute, which should not be the case, opposing counsel did not mention this issue at all. If the crucial piece of evidence that the Plaintiff relied on to make their argument did not exist, Defendant’s counsel would have been the first to tear it to pieces. Especially given the fact that this is Alexander Love, a sharp attorney with a long history of an eye for detail. Instead, his argument focused on the lack of damages, not the lack of evidence.

The core issue here is that the court effectively lost the evidence provided. The timing of the presiding judge’s review of the evidence or the expiration of the link is entirely beyond the control of either party in the case. The evidence was submitted but was not reviewed in a timely manner to be utilized in the verdict.

Under American and British law (both of which influence Redmont’s legal system), courts are permitted to infer in favor of the Plaintiff regarding the contents of lost evidence. I have not found any specific Redmont law addressing this unique situation.

Therefore, I am requesting that the court give inference in favor of the Plaintiff about the contents of the lost evidence. This request is reasonable considering that the Defendant’s counsel did not dispute the link’s validity, thereby implicitly accepting that it was proof of the original, unedited version of the contract, supporting the arguments laid out in the Plaintiff’s Complaint, Opening Statements, and Closing Statements.

With this in mind, I respectfully request relief from the court.
 
Admin23 said:
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION FOR RELIEF​


First, I would like to thank the court for its decision to reopen this case.

Your Honor, this procedure is a bit extraordinary, so please forgive me for filing a motion that does not exist within Redmont Courts’ Motions Guide. I have not found any Redmont law or court procedure written to help resolve this. I’m sure this will raise an objection from opposing counsel; however, I ask that the court hear me out.

I would like to explain the Plaintiff’s predicament to the court.

The link in question was the only evidence I had to show the unedited contract in its original form. This link was functional when the complaint was submitted to this court.

I would like to bring the court’s attention to the fact that neither of the two presiding judges nor opposing counsel raised any issues with the link. Both RelaxedGV and SumoMC had the opportunity to examine Exhibit A, and neither stated that they found fault with the link. Even if we assume that presiding judges might not look at the evidence until the last minute, which should not be the case, opposing counsel did not mention this issue at all. If the crucial piece of evidence that the Plaintiff relied on to make their argument did not exist, Defendant’s counsel would have been the first to tear it to pieces. Especially given the fact that this is Alexander Love, a sharp attorney with a long history of an eye for detail. Instead, his argument focused on the lack of damages, not the lack of evidence.

The core issue here is that the court effectively lost the evidence provided. The timing of the presiding judge’s review of the evidence or the expiration of the link is entirely beyond the control of either party in the case. The evidence was submitted but was not reviewed in a timely manner to be utilized in the verdict.

Under American and British law (both of which influence Redmont’s legal system), courts are permitted to infer in favor of the Plaintiff regarding the contents of lost evidence. I have not found any specific Redmont law addressing this unique situation.

Therefore, I am requesting that the court give inference in favor of the Plaintiff about the contents of the lost evidence. This request is reasonable considering that the Defendant’s counsel did not dispute the link’s validity, thereby implicitly accepting that it was proof of the original, unedited version of the contract, supporting the arguments laid out in the Plaintiff’s Complaint, Opening Statements, and Closing Statements.

With this in mind, I respectfully request relief from the court.
Click to expand...
Objection, your honor. Breach of procedure. The plaintiff has failed to cooperate with an order to reproduce the evidence, and is instead making an illegal motion. He blames the loss of evidence on the Court when in fact the plaintiff failed to keep accurate records. I move to strike this motion from the record and to strike exhibit A from the evidence.
 
Admin23 said:
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION FOR RELIEF​


First, I would like to thank the court for its decision to reopen this case.

Your Honor, this procedure is a bit extraordinary, so please forgive me for filing a motion that does not exist within Redmont Courts’ Motions Guide. I have not found any Redmont law or court procedure written to help resolve this. I’m sure this will raise an objection from opposing counsel; however, I ask that the court hear me out.

I would like to explain the Plaintiff’s predicament to the court.

The link in question was the only evidence I had to show the unedited contract in its original form. This link was functional when the complaint was submitted to this court.

I would like to bring the court’s attention to the fact that neither of the two presiding judges nor opposing counsel raised any issues with the link. Both RelaxedGV and SumoMC had the opportunity to examine Exhibit A, and neither stated that they found fault with the link. Even if we assume that presiding judges might not look at the evidence until the last minute, which should not be the case, opposing counsel did not mention this issue at all. If the crucial piece of evidence that the Plaintiff relied on to make their argument did not exist, Defendant’s counsel would have been the first to tear it to pieces. Especially given the fact that this is Alexander Love, a sharp attorney with a long history of an eye for detail. Instead, his argument focused on the lack of damages, not the lack of evidence.

The core issue here is that the court effectively lost the evidence provided. The timing of the presiding judge’s review of the evidence or the expiration of the link is entirely beyond the control of either party in the case. The evidence was submitted but was not reviewed in a timely manner to be utilized in the verdict.

Under American and British law (both of which influence Redmont’s legal system), courts are permitted to infer in favor of the Plaintiff regarding the contents of lost evidence. I have not found any specific Redmont law addressing this unique situation.

Therefore, I am requesting that the court give inference in favor of the Plaintiff about the contents of the lost evidence. This request is reasonable considering that the Defendant’s counsel did not dispute the link’s validity, thereby implicitly accepting that it was proof of the original, unedited version of the contract, supporting the arguments laid out in the Plaintiff’s Complaint, Opening Statements, and Closing Statements.

With this in mind, I respectfully request relief from the court.
Click to expand...

Overruled. The duty to protect evidence lies with the party submitting it. Responsibility for the link not working cannot be placed on the previous presiding officers or the defense. When you submit evidence to the court, you must ensure it works correctly and will continue to do so. I will allow you to provide a fixed link, but if you fail to do so, I will not be able to consider that piece of evidence in this ruling.

Additionally, please clarify if this submission serves as your second closing statement or if you will be posting that separately.
 
Alexander P. Love said:
Objection, your honor. Breach of procedure. The plaintiff has failed to cooperate with an order to reproduce the evidence, and is instead making an illegal motion. He blames the loss of evidence on the Court when in fact the plaintiff failed to keep accurate records. I move to strike this motion from the record and to strike exhibit A from the evidence.
Click to expand...
Overruled. While the motion is not listed in the guide, I will allow it. Regarding the order to reproduce, I will give the plaintiff 24 hours to comply, or it will be struck.
 
I want to state for the record that the Exhibit A video has been recovered and sent to the presiding judge. He is reviewing it.
 
After speaking with both parties in my chambers, the evidence has been located. @Admin23, please submit the video evidence to the court within 24 hours here. Once this is submitted, Mr. Love will have 72 hours to submit a closing statement.
 
Unseatedduke1 said:
After speaking with both parties in my chambers, the evidence has been located. @Admin23, please submit the video evidence to the court within 24 hours here. Once this is submitted, Mr. Love will have 72 hours to submit a closing statement.
Click to expand...
I have uploaded the video to YouTube. If there are any issues with the link or if you are unable to view it, please let me know as soon as possible.


EXHIBIT A
 
Your Honor, we are sitting at 12 hours past the deadline for opposing counsel to post his closing statement. Opposing counsel has managed to miss every deadline this court has set. This is a disrespect to the court and a waste of time for everyone involved, I ask the court carry on with a verdict without the Defense’s closing statement.
 
The defense reiterates its points from the original closing statement. We apologize for the tardiness, the last two days have been full of work.
 
Court is in recess pending verdict.
 

Verdict


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
VERDICT

Reppal v. EcoFinance [2024] FCR 77

I. PLAINTIFF'S POSITION
1. The Plaintiff, contends that EcoFinance breached the Boeing Mile credit card contract by engaging in unauthorized modifications and subsequent cancellation.

II. DEFENDANT'S POSITION
1. EcoFinance contends that it had the right to modify the contract as necessary for operational reasons.

2. EcoFinance asserts that the contract was not violated but that there was a simple and easily rectified misunderstanding. The defendant maintains that the contract could not be voided as argued by the Plaintiff, and even if modifications and termination occurred, the contract remained valid throughout the process.


III. THE COURT OPINION

  1. This ruling is based on the information presented by the parties and matters commonly known to the public.
  2. The Plaintiff and Defendant did indeed enter into a legally binding contract that met all legal standards as outlined in the Contracts Act. The evidence clearly shows that the Defendant made edits to the contract after it was signed and agreed upon by both parties. Modifying a contract after its signing requires the consent of both parties to be legally binding. Therefore, the addition made to the contract was not legally enforceable.
  3. The Defendant's act of editing the contract and subsequently attempting to use this non-legally binding edit to terminate the contract constitutes bad faith and results in a material breach of contract. As a result, the contract is rendered null and void, and the Defendant is liable for damages.
  4. In summary, the Defendant and Plaintiff entered into a legally binding agreement. The Defendant then edited the contract and sought to terminate it using the edited portion in bad faith, thereby breaching the contract. The breach of contract was significant enough to undermine the fundamental purpose of the contract.
  5. Regarding damages, the Defendant failed to mitigate damages and instead continued to cancel the contract and attempt to move forward. The Defendant's conduct was outrageous; attempting to modify a contract after it was agreed upon and then using that modified contract to justify actions is unacceptable and outrageous.
  6. Based on the balance of probabilities, it is highly likely that the Defendant edited the contract with the intention of obtaining the ability to cancel it.

IV. DECISION
In the matter of FCR 77, I rule in favor of the Plaintiff with a modified prayer for relief.
  1. The contract established between the two entities is deemed null and void.
  2. The Plaintiff shall recover $20,000 in compensatory damages for the loss of credit card benefits.
  3. The Plaintiff shall recover $50,000 in punitive damages. The conduct of the defendant was outrageous as they edited the contract in an attempt to deceive the other party and evade their contractual obligations.
  4. 30% in legal fees ($21,000) will be awarded to Admin23 for their work in the case.

The Federal Court thanks all involved.

 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top