Lawsuit: Adjourned Skywat4 v. Awesomestuff113 [2023] FCR 68

Status
Not open for further replies.

Skywat4

CEO of Amazon
Moderator
Education Secretary
Justice Department
Education Department
Commerce Department
Redmont Bar Assoc.
Supporter
Skywat4
Skywat4
economist
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


Skywat4 (Solid Law Representing)
Plaintiff

v.

Awesomestuff113
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

The defendant signed an in-game contract to pay back a loan to the plaintiff but never paid back the loan.

I. PARTIES
1. Skywat4
2. Awesomestuff113

II. FACTS
1. On the 28th of June, 2023, the defendant signed a loan contract in-game that the plaintiff created (Exhibit A).
2. The due date to pay back this loan was 0:00 EST on July 13th, 2023 as per clause three of the contract (Exhibit B).
3. The defendant has not paid any money or sent a discord message with the format outlined in clause 6 of the contract (Exhibit B) to the plaintiff.
4. It has been almost two weeks since the due date of the contract and the defendant has not paid the plaintiff.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. Because the defendant did not pay back the plaintiff as per the terms of the contract, they are committing breach of contract.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. $9,004.72 for the original money owed plus interest
2. $10,000 in late fees
3. $3,159 in place of Plot c593 because the plaintiff does not own it anymore
4. $1,500 in legal fees

V. EVIDENCE
IMG_1435.png

IMG_1436.png

IMG_1437.png

IMG_1438.png

IMG_1439.png

IMG_1440.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 25th day of July 2023
 

Skywat4

CEO of Amazon
Moderator
Education Secretary
Justice Department
Education Department
Commerce Department
Redmont Bar Assoc.
Supporter
Skywat4
Skywat4
economist
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO SUBMIT NEW EVIDENCE

Your honor, I would like to submit “Exhibit C” to evidence showing that the plot value is indeed worth $3159 if you sell it directly to the government

image.png
 

Banana

The one and only
Moderator
Redmont Bar Assoc.
Supporter
BananaNova
BananaNova
attorney
federal-court-png.12082


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

@awesomestuff113 is required to appear before the Federal Court in the case of Skywat4 v. Awesomestuff113 [2023] FCR 68.

Failure to appear within 48 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 Court Rules and Procedures, including the option of an in-game trial should both parties request one.​
 

Alexander P. Love

Director, Redmont Bureau of Investigation
Redmont Bar Assoc.
Supporter
AlexanderLove
AlexanderLove
attorney
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

Skywat4
Plaintiff

v.

Awesomestuff113 (AlexanderLove representing)
Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
1. The defense affirms the facts that the Plaintiff provided.
2. The defense denies that there was a breach of contract.

II. DEFENCES
1. The contract fails to meet the terms of a fair contract.
2. The Plaintiff assessed an overall interest rate of 80% on a small loan. The contract was complexly worded and riddled with grammar errors, so it would be easy to interpret it as 4% interest overall, compounded daily rather than 4% interest assessed each day.
3. Awesomestuff113 is a new player who entered into this predatory agreement without good knowledge of how unfair the terms actually are. Many experienced players may also fall into the same trap, and regardless of how wealthy they are, this is absolutely unfair by any sort of standard.
4. The penalties for non-payment are unfair. In addition to the whopping 80% interest rate, there is a late fee worth more than the principal and the interest combined -- absurd. Add the property to that and you get a poverty trap. Why is there an absurd late fee as well as a property repossession? Finally, legal fees are not needed as the plaintiff is representing himself and therefore will have no actual legal costs. He is not hiring someone to represent him on his behalf.

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.

EDIT: Added discussion about the property repossession
DATED: This 31st day of July, 2023
 

Banana

The one and only
Moderator
Redmont Bar Assoc.
Supporter
BananaNova
BananaNova
attorney
Thank you. The Plaintiff may now present their opening arguments.
 

Dartanman

Citizen
Justice
Redmont Bar Assoc.
Aventura Resident
Dartanman
Dartanman
justice
 OBJECTION
BREACH OF PROCEDURE

AlexanderLove has failed to provide proof that he is in-fact the Defendant's counsel.

We ask that he provide that proof or his response be struck.
 

Alexander P. Love

Director, Redmont Bureau of Investigation
Redmont Bar Assoc.
Supporter
AlexanderLove
AlexanderLove
attorney
 OBJECTION
BREACH OF PROCEDURE

AlexanderLove has failed to provide proof that he is in-fact the Defendant's counsel.

We ask that he provide that proof or his response be struck.
Seriously...

Screenshot (111).png
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Skywat4

CEO of Amazon
Moderator
Education Secretary
Justice Department
Education Department
Commerce Department
Redmont Bar Assoc.
Supporter
Skywat4
Skywat4
economist
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OPENING STATEMENT

I. OPENING STATEMENT
May it please the court,

Your honor, this is a case about a person who has lost money from a contract which should be simple to follow. The defense claims that “The contract fails to meet the terms of a fair contract” however this is not true. In order for a contract to be considered “valid” it must have three things: offer, consideration, and acceptance. There is clearly an offer in this contract: A loan was given by the plaintiff to the defendant. The consideration is also clear. In exchange for a loan from the plaintiff, the defendant will pay back a loan with interest and possible fees in return. As per exhibit A, there was also an acceptance for this contract. The defendant and the plaintiff also had the legal capacity to enter the contract and the contract didn’t require anybody to break the law.

The defense also states that the contract was not clear, however that is far from the truth. The contract was super specific and multiple examples were given to make it as clear as possible. The defense states that “it would be easy to interpret it as 4% interest overall, compounded daily”. The assumption the defense made about 4% compounded daily is actually correct. Clause 1 of the contract clearly states “An interest will be applied to the initial money compounded at 4% every day”. The contract clearly states that the money is being compounded every day at a rate of 1.04 exactly what the defense assumed it would be. If you continually multiply the money owed by 1.04 each day for the amount of days, you will end up with $9,004.72, the amount of money being asked for in damages.

The defense also states that the defendant is a new player and doesn't know much. The only way for a contract to not apply to a new player is if the new player has less than 2 hours of playtime as per the “Contract Law Creation Act”. As you can see in Exhibit D, the defendant has more than 2 hours of playtime so the contract is valid. I’d also like to mention that the defendant changed their name and that’s why it shows as “Cosmic_crafting”. Proof of the name change is in Exhibit E. Being ignorant is not an excuse to get out of a contract. The defendant read the contract and signed it. If they had questions or were unsure they should have asked an attorney or not signed it. As the defense said themselves, even “experienced players may also fall into the same trap”.

The defense claims that the late fees, high interest, and property taken are outrageous. The high interest was because the defendant was fairly new and might not be trusted so a high interest rate was necessary. The property and the high late fee were also necessary for this reason. It was to persuade the defendant to not be late so we didn’t have to drag this into court. No matter the reason, the high late fees, interest rate, and property owed are completely legal to have in a contract and the defendant willingly signed it. In fact, AlexanderLove, the attorney for the defense, has done the same things in the past. In Exhibit F, Alex says in a group chat in Discord the extremely high penalties he likes to charge for NDA breaches. This is the same reason there were high late fees on this contract: to prevent it from happening in the first place.

The defense also states that “legal fees are not needed as the plaintiff is representing himself”. If the defense had read the complaint they would clearly see that Solid Law is representing this case. As I am an employee at Solid Law I am able to post this case on my own. Other attorneys are working on this case and the legal fees are necessary in that regard. You can even see the owner of the firm, Dartanman, making an objection above, further showing that Solid Law is representing and that legal fees are needed.

Overall, this should be an open and shut case. The defendant failed to pay back a loan and thus must pay the damages in return.

II. MOTION TO SUBMIT NEW EVIDENCE
Your honor, we would like to submit “Exhibit D” to evidence showing the defendant’s playtime, “Exhibit E” showing the name change of the defendant, and “Exhibit F” showing the message from AlexanderLove.


IMG_1459.jpeg

image.png
 

Alexander P. Love

Director, Redmont Bureau of Investigation
Redmont Bar Assoc.
Supporter
AlexanderLove
AlexanderLove
attorney
In fact, AlexanderLove, the attorney for the defense, has done the same things in the past. In Exhibit F, Alex says in a group chat in Discord the extremely high penalties he likes to charge for NDA breaches.
Objection, your honor.

This as well as exhibit F are hearsay as I am not the subject of this trial. What I said in private has no bearing on my client's case. This is grossly unfair and uses out-of-court opinions to try and make something valid whether or not the law agrees. I also object to relevance, as my statements out of court have no bearing on this trial.
 

Banana

The one and only
Moderator
Redmont Bar Assoc.
Supporter
BananaNova
BananaNova
attorney
Objection on grounds of relevance is sustained. Exhibit F and the statement in question are outside of the scope of this lawsuit and are personal attacks rather than arguments. They will not be entered into the record.
 

Banana

The one and only
Moderator
Redmont Bar Assoc.
Supporter
BananaNova
BananaNova
attorney
The Defense may now present their opening arguments.
 

Skywat4

CEO of Amazon
Moderator
Education Secretary
Justice Department
Education Department
Commerce Department
Redmont Bar Assoc.
Supporter
Skywat4
Skywat4
economist
Your honor, respectfully it has been 48 hours and the defense still has not posted their opening statement
 

Alexander P. Love

Director, Redmont Bureau of Investigation
Redmont Bar Assoc.
Supporter
AlexanderLove
AlexanderLove
attorney
Your honor,

The defense reasserts that the penalties are unfair. The value of this case is about 5x the loan principal. Thank you.

(The plaintiff objected to time limit before the time limit was exceeded)
 

Banana

The one and only
Moderator
Redmont Bar Assoc.
Supporter
BananaNova
BananaNova
attorney
Thank you. We will now move on to witness testimony. Both parties may submit a list of witnesses to call, or declare that they have none.
 

Skywat4

CEO of Amazon
Moderator
Education Secretary
Justice Department
Education Department
Commerce Department
Redmont Bar Assoc.
Supporter
Skywat4
Skywat4
economist
The plaintiff doesn’t have any witnesses to call Your Honor.
 

Skywat4

CEO of Amazon
Moderator
Education Secretary
Justice Department
Education Department
Commerce Department
Redmont Bar Assoc.
Supporter
Skywat4
Skywat4
economist
Your Honor,

It has been 48 hours and the defense has not responded. This is becoming ridiculous as this is the second time this has occurred in this case.
 

Banana

The one and only
Moderator
Redmont Bar Assoc.
Supporter
BananaNova
BananaNova
attorney
The Defense's tardiness and apparent lack of preparedness for this case is not acceptable. We will be moving on without the Defense's witness list.

Given that the Plaintiff had no witnesses to call, we will move on to closing statements. The Plaintiff may now present their closing arguments.
 

Alexander P. Love

Director, Redmont Bureau of Investigation
Redmont Bar Assoc.
Supporter
AlexanderLove
AlexanderLove
attorney
The Defense's tardiness and apparent lack of preparedness for this case is not acceptable. We will be moving on without the Defense's witness list.

Given that the Plaintiff had no witnesses to call, we will move on to closing statements. The Plaintiff may now present their closing arguments.
Your honor, we have no witnesses to call anyhow. We apologize for tardiness. I assigned this case out to someone else within my firm who seems to have dropped the ball on a response. This issue will be addressed internally.
 

Skywat4

CEO of Amazon
Moderator
Education Secretary
Justice Department
Education Department
Commerce Department
Redmont Bar Assoc.
Supporter
Skywat4
Skywat4
economist
Your Honor,

This is a case about a contract being violated. Ethics, uninformed contract signing, and the “fairness” of a contract are not issues at hand. The issue at hand is the legality. As stated in the plaintiff’s opening statement, this contract was completely legal.

The defense claims that the contract asks for too much and is unfair. No matter the opinion of the defense, it has no affect on the legality. Since the contract was completely legal, the defense has an obligation to pay the plaintiff the money owed.


Ignorance is not an excuse for murder nor is it an excuse for not following a contract. Because of this, the plaintiff reaffirms the fact that the defense made a legally binding agreement that needs to be followed. The plaintiff rests their case.
 

Banana

The one and only
Moderator
Redmont Bar Assoc.
Supporter
BananaNova
BananaNova
attorney
The Defense may now present their closing arguments.
 

Alexander P. Love

Director, Redmont Bureau of Investigation
Redmont Bar Assoc.
Supporter
AlexanderLove
AlexanderLove
attorney
Nothing really more to say, this contract is blatantly unfair and the defense reasserts that.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Dartanman

Citizen
Justice
Redmont Bar Assoc.
Aventura Resident
Dartanman
Dartanman
justice
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO STRIKE

AlexanderLove has spoken out of turn and we request his remarks be stricken.
 

Alexander P. Love

Director, Redmont Bureau of Investigation
Redmont Bar Assoc.
Supporter
AlexanderLove
AlexanderLove
attorney
Your honor, more than 56 hours have passed.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO STRIKE

Dartanman has spoken out of turn and we request his remarks be stricken. The Judge is more than capable of enforcing times, and Dartanman did not express a motion nor objection with this comment, therefore making it an extraneous comment serving only to harass the defense.
 

Banana

The one and only
Moderator
Redmont Bar Assoc.
Supporter
BananaNova
BananaNova
attorney
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO STRIKE

AlexanderLove has spoken out of turn and we request his remarks be stricken.
Motion is accepted. The comments by AlexanderLove will be struck from the record. I have already mentioned the tardiness, Counselor.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO STRIKE

Dartanman has spoken out of turn and we request his remarks be stricken. The Judge is more than capable of enforcing times, and Dartanman did not express a motion nor objection with this comment, therefore making it an extraneous comment serving only to harass the defense.
Motion to strike is rejected. I have been driving all day and was unable to get to my computer until now, and the time limit has been enforced. The Defense's comments on time are not harassing anyone, just giving me a small reminder about when the time limit might have passed. These kinds of comments are quite common in court cases, and they are purely a statement of fact.
 

Alexander P. Love

Director, Redmont Bureau of Investigation
Redmont Bar Assoc.
Supporter
AlexanderLove
AlexanderLove
attorney
Your honor,

The defense respectfully would like to remind the Court to produce a verdict.
 

Banana

The one and only
Moderator
Redmont Bar Assoc.
Supporter
BananaNova
BananaNova
attorney

Verdict


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Skywat4 v. Awesomestuff113 [2023] FCR 68

I. PLAINTIFF’S POSITION
1. The Plaintiff made a contract with the Defendant for the Plaintiff to loan $5,000 to the Defendant.
2. The contract included provisions for interest, as well as late penalties such as additional fees and seizures of properties.
3. The Defendant failed to pay back the loan in the timeframe provided.
4. The Plaintiff is thus entitled to the penalties, as well as interest and remaining capital, provided for in the contract.

II. DEFENSE’S POSITION
1. The Defendant is a new player, and the terms of the contract are unduly predatory. The contract was also additionally written to be confusing to the Defendant to hide the steep rate of the interest accrued.
2. A late fee and additional penalties worth more than the principal and interest combined are absurd.
3. The terms of the contract are not fair, and thus there was no breach of contract.

III. COURT’S OPINION
1. In this case, a legally binding agreement was made. Both parties were aware of the terms, which were specified clearly with examples and precise dates and amounts, and it appears both parties entered into the contract of their own volition, with legal intent.
2. The contract terms do indeed seem to be fairly predatory, with 4% interest compounded daily and a $10,000 late fee on a $5,000 principal. That notwithstanding, if both parties agree to the terms of a contract, those terms are binding. I believe that the Plaintiff has provided sufficient evidence to prove that both parties agreed knowing the contract’s terms, which makes the Defendant liable for the damages specified in the contract.

IV. VERDICT
I find in favor of the Plaintiff, and I will grant a full prayer for relief. I order that the Defendant be fined $23,663.72 and that same amount be unfined to the Plaintiff by the Department of Justice.

The court thanks both parties for their time. This case is hereby adjourned.

 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top