- Joined
- Jun 15, 2026
- Messages
- 69
- Thread Author
- #1
Case Filing
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION
SerjAnd1804
Plaintiff
v.
Frog_Bro_
Defendant
CIVIL ACTION
SerjAnd1804
Plaintiff
v.
Frog_Bro_
Defendant
WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF
I. PARTIES
1. SerjAnd1804 (Plaintiff)
2. Frog_Bro_ (Defendant)
II. FACTS
1. The Defendant Approached the Plaintiff, asking him if he can buy an Iron Drill advertised at $10,000.
2. The Plaintiff respectfully asked the Defendant to wait 2 minutes so he can make up his mind.
3. At 19:59:37, EEST (Eastern European Summer Time/UTC+3), the Plaintiff approached the Defendant, agreeing to sell his Iron Drill at the Price of $10,000. (P-002, P-003)
4. The Plaintiff asked the Defendant to say yes to the Verbal Contract, made by Cyanroy. (P-003)
5. The Defense said "Yes" to the contract. (P-003)
6. The Lawyer, with legally no implication, accidentally said "yo may now kiss the brib0". (P-004)
7. The Defense Responded with "i own you" to the Plaintiff.
8. The Defense followed up with "wait you said it was a marrige", "well then i owe him nothing", "see ya nerds".
9. The Defense respectfully tried to explain to the Defense that the contract was still Legally binding, so he still need's to pay him the agreed $10,000.
10. The Defense responded with "ill sell it in a auction before you can sue me".
III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. Under Redmont's Contract Law, a Contract follows a simple test. All aspects of a contract were established in this transaction.
a) Offer. It is reasonably inferred that the offer Made by the Plaintiff do the Defendant, a Iron Drill for a reasonable sum of $10,000, based on the chat logs.
b) Acceptance. It is clear through the chatlogs that both parties agreed to a set price.
c) Consideration. A Iron Drill was being offered by the Defendant in exchange for money from the Defendant.
d) Intent. Both parties stated their intent to fully enter and complete the deal.
e) Capacity. Capacity was present.
2. Under Redmont's Civil Code, Conversion is defined as an offense where someone (a) wrongfully takes, obtains, or withholds property from an owner; and (b) intends to deprive the owner of the property or to appropriate it to themselves or a third party; and (c) the wrongful taking, obtaining, or withholding is committed by: (ii) obtaining property through deception, lies, or false statements. The Defendant deceived the Plaintiff into Obtaining an item from him, in this case a Iron Drill.
3. Under Redmont's Civil Code, Misleading Conduct in Trade or Commerce is defined as an offense where A person commits a violation if the person: (a) engages in conduct that is misleading, deceptive, or likely to mislead or deceived another person in connection with the promotion, sale, or supply of goods or services. This violation shall not occur where: (b) the conduct constitutes puffery (obvious exaggeration); or (c) the plaintiff failed to exercise reasonable care in relying on the conduct.
IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. $10,000 in Compensatory Damages for the Iron Drill.
2. $5,000 Punitive Damages because the Defendant’s conduct involved deliberate deception and intent to cause loss.
3. $6,000 for Breach of Contract.
4. Legal fees at 30% of the total award.
5. Any other restitution that the court sees as right and just.
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 14 day of October 2026
Last edited: