- Joined
- Jun 30, 2026
- Messages
- 3
- Thread Author
- #1
SplashyAlpaca77 vs. EZ-Fish
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION
Splashyalpaca77
Plaintiff
v.
EZ-Fish
Defendant
&
normanninjakids
Co-defendant
COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the defense as follows:
I. PARTIES
1. SplashyAlpaca77(Plaintiff)
2. EZ-Fish(Defendent)
3. normanninjakids(Co-Defendent)
II. FACTS
1. on July 13th, plaintiff joined a discord server claiming to buy and sell bundles of fish(P-001)
2. On that same day, Plaintiff opened a ticket for the express purpose of selling 6 bundles of fish(P-002)
3. In multiple places, the prices of bundles were listed at $200
per bundle(P-003,P-004)
4.The Defendants agreed to purchase the 6 bundles for the agreed upon price(P-005)
5. The Plaintiff fulfilled their part of the contract, mailing all six bundles to The Co-Defendant(P-006)
6. The Defendants then Paid the Plaintiff $775, instead of the agreed upon 1,200(P-007)
7. the defendants then claimed that there had been a change and refused to give The Plaintiff the money he was owed.(P-008)
8.Then, when The Plaintiff requested once more, The Defendent lied and claimed there had been an announcment, when no such announcement was made.(P-009)
9. Then, After the Plaintiff requested one final time, the Co-Defendant refused to reply
III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
III.1. Breach Of contract
In the Redmont Civil Code Act, Breach of Contract is a strict liability civil violation defined as:
A person commits a violation if the person:
(RCCA, Part VI, Section 1)
Plaintiff alleges the Defendant had entered into a valid and enforceable with them as defined under Contracts Act §4.2 for the sale & transfer of 6 Bundles of fish from Plaintiff to Defendant, in return for $1,200 from Defendant to Plaintiff.
III.1.A Defendant Committed Breach of Contract against Plaintiff SplashyAlpaca77
In the Incident,a valid and enforceable contract was formed between Plaintiff and the Defendant respectively as defined by Contracts Act §4.2.
As seen when Plaintiff offers 6 bundles and then the Defendent accepts, A legally binding contract was formed. Plaintiff sends the bundles, and Defendant only sends $775.
By engaging in this misleading and deceptive conduct towards Plaintiff, in connection with the advertisement and aquisition of 6 bundles of fish to Plaintiff, Defendant has committed Misleading Conduct in Trade or Commerce against Plaintiff.
In the Redmont Civil Code Act, Misrepresentation is an intentional/negligent civil violation defined as:
(RCCA, Part VI, Section 2).
Plaintiff alleges that Defendant made multiple false statements of material fact when they represented they were buying bundles of fish for $200. Defendant made a false statement of fact when claiming Bundles were truly priced at $200. Bundles were specifically mentioned in the chat, and Plaintiff relied on the truth of the statement from Defendant when they sent the bundles to Defendant and satisfied their obligations of the contract, which resulted in them failing to receive Their proper recomspence, causing a significant monetary loss, specifically, a loss of $425.
(RCCA, Part X, Section 1)
Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant obtained and retained benefit at their expense, this benefit was $425. Defendant retained these benefits at their expense by never providing the promised full payment.
There is absolutely no legal justification for the Defendant retaining the Plaintiff’s money after receiving the bundles. The actions taken by the Defendant have no excuse and fit the description of this civil violation exactly, Defendant has obtained and retained a benefit of $425 total at the expense of Plaintiff.
Plaintiff alleges that for these reasons, Defendant has committed Unjust Enrichment.
In the Redmont Civil Code Act, Conversion is an intentional civil violation defined as:
(RCCA, Part VII, Section 7).
Plaintiff alleges that the 6 bundles of fish were their property.
In the case of Plaintiff, they allege that Defendant purposefully obtained and retained, or possibly even used their money to obtain their own ill-gotten personal property through deception, lies, and false statements.
Defendant claimed to SplashyAlpaca77 would receive a $1,200 after giving Defendant the previously agreed upon 6 bundles. Defendant did not deliver the full $1,200 and never attempted to deliver the money, but rather attempted to convince the Plaintiff to accept a lower price, Defendant quickly talked about how they felt bad for what they had done and logged out of the discord.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant unlawfully took both Plaintiff's personal property, in the form of 6 bundles, to their own use, harming both Plaintiff and Co-Plaintiff.
2. ...
IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. Compensentory Damages: Plaintiff should have received $1,200, but instead only received $775. Therefore, the Plaintiff is owed $425
2. Punitive Damages: As defined in the Redmont Civil Code Act (RCCA, Part III, Section 2), “Punitive damages will not be awarded unless they are either authorized by statute or unless the conduct of the other party in causing the party’s harm is outrageous”. For the reasons as described in this case, Plaintiff alleges the conduct of the Defendant is clearly outrageous. By committing this offence in bad faith, taking hard-earned money and fish from good-faith buyers, continuing to advertise in attempt to find more victims, the Defendant has crossed the line for outrageous activity. For this, Plaintiff and Co-Plaintiff seek $25,000 in punitive damages for Misleading Conduct in Trade or Commerce and additional $20,000 for Failure to Deliver Goods or Services. This totals to $45,000 To the Plaintiff
3. Nominal Damages: Plaintiff seeks restitution in the form of nominal damages at $7,500 to acknowledge harm done by Defendant to Plaintiff and Co-Plaintiff.
(Attach evidence and a list of witnesses at the bottom if applicable)
V. Evidence
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 16 day of July 2026
[/case]
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION
Splashyalpaca77
Plaintiff
v.
EZ-Fish
Defendant
&
normanninjakids
Co-defendant
COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the defense as follows:
I. PARTIES
1. SplashyAlpaca77(Plaintiff)
2. EZ-Fish(Defendent)
3. normanninjakids(Co-Defendent)
II. FACTS
1. on July 13th, plaintiff joined a discord server claiming to buy and sell bundles of fish(P-001)
2. On that same day, Plaintiff opened a ticket for the express purpose of selling 6 bundles of fish(P-002)
3. In multiple places, the prices of bundles were listed at $200
per bundle(P-003,P-004)
4.The Defendants agreed to purchase the 6 bundles for the agreed upon price(P-005)
5. The Plaintiff fulfilled their part of the contract, mailing all six bundles to The Co-Defendant(P-006)
6. The Defendants then Paid the Plaintiff $775, instead of the agreed upon 1,200(P-007)
7. the defendants then claimed that there had been a change and refused to give The Plaintiff the money he was owed.(P-008)
8.Then, when The Plaintiff requested once more, The Defendent lied and claimed there had been an announcment, when no such announcement was made.(P-009)
9. Then, After the Plaintiff requested one final time, the Co-Defendant refused to reply
III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
III.1. Breach Of contract
In the Redmont Civil Code Act, Breach of Contract is a strict liability civil violation defined as:
A person commits a violation if the person:
(RCCA, Part VI, Section 1)
Plaintiff alleges the Defendant had entered into a valid and enforceable with them as defined under Contracts Act §4.2 for the sale & transfer of 6 Bundles of fish from Plaintiff to Defendant, in return for $1,200 from Defendant to Plaintiff.
III.1.A Defendant Committed Breach of Contract against Plaintiff SplashyAlpaca77
In the Incident,a valid and enforceable contract was formed between Plaintiff and the Defendant respectively as defined by Contracts Act §4.2.
As seen when Plaintiff offers 6 bundles and then the Defendent accepts, A legally binding contract was formed. Plaintiff sends the bundles, and Defendant only sends $775.
III.2. Defendant committed Misleading Conduct in Trade or Commerce against Plaintiff
Plaintiff entered into a valid and enforceable contract with Defendant after all requirements as defined by Contracts Act §4.2 were satisfied as laid out in Claim for Relief III.1.A. Defendant intended to wrongfully take this Items, sending $775, as well as admitting guilt in stating "Mb” and "We are really sry about this", and it is further made clear he acted outrageously and in bad faith when he continued to advertise the Selling and buying from his business later.By engaging in this misleading and deceptive conduct towards Plaintiff, in connection with the advertisement and aquisition of 6 bundles of fish to Plaintiff, Defendant has committed Misleading Conduct in Trade or Commerce against Plaintiff.
III.3 Misrepresentation
In the Redmont Civil Code Act, Misrepresentation is an intentional/negligent civil violation defined as:
(RCCA, Part VI, Section 2).
Plaintiff alleges that Defendant made multiple false statements of material fact when they represented they were buying bundles of fish for $200. Defendant made a false statement of fact when claiming Bundles were truly priced at $200. Bundles were specifically mentioned in the chat, and Plaintiff relied on the truth of the statement from Defendant when they sent the bundles to Defendant and satisfied their obligations of the contract, which resulted in them failing to receive Their proper recomspence, causing a significant monetary loss, specifically, a loss of $425.
III.4 Unjust Enrichment
In the Redmont Civil Code Act, Unjust Enrichment is a Strict Liability civil violation defined as:(RCCA, Part X, Section 1)
Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant obtained and retained benefit at their expense, this benefit was $425. Defendant retained these benefits at their expense by never providing the promised full payment.
There is absolutely no legal justification for the Defendant retaining the Plaintiff’s money after receiving the bundles. The actions taken by the Defendant have no excuse and fit the description of this civil violation exactly, Defendant has obtained and retained a benefit of $425 total at the expense of Plaintiff.
Plaintiff alleges that for these reasons, Defendant has committed Unjust Enrichment.
III.5 Conversion
In the Redmont Civil Code Act, Conversion is an intentional civil violation defined as:
(RCCA, Part VII, Section 7).
Plaintiff alleges that the 6 bundles of fish were their property.
In the case of Plaintiff, they allege that Defendant purposefully obtained and retained, or possibly even used their money to obtain their own ill-gotten personal property through deception, lies, and false statements.
Defendant claimed to SplashyAlpaca77 would receive a $1,200 after giving Defendant the previously agreed upon 6 bundles. Defendant did not deliver the full $1,200 and never attempted to deliver the money, but rather attempted to convince the Plaintiff to accept a lower price, Defendant quickly talked about how they felt bad for what they had done and logged out of the discord.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant unlawfully took both Plaintiff's personal property, in the form of 6 bundles, to their own use, harming both Plaintiff and Co-Plaintiff.
2. ...
IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. Compensentory Damages: Plaintiff should have received $1,200, but instead only received $775. Therefore, the Plaintiff is owed $425
2. Punitive Damages: As defined in the Redmont Civil Code Act (RCCA, Part III, Section 2), “Punitive damages will not be awarded unless they are either authorized by statute or unless the conduct of the other party in causing the party’s harm is outrageous”. For the reasons as described in this case, Plaintiff alleges the conduct of the Defendant is clearly outrageous. By committing this offence in bad faith, taking hard-earned money and fish from good-faith buyers, continuing to advertise in attempt to find more victims, the Defendant has crossed the line for outrageous activity. For this, Plaintiff and Co-Plaintiff seek $25,000 in punitive damages for Misleading Conduct in Trade or Commerce and additional $20,000 for Failure to Deliver Goods or Services. This totals to $45,000 To the Plaintiff
3. Nominal Damages: Plaintiff seeks restitution in the form of nominal damages at $7,500 to acknowledge harm done by Defendant to Plaintiff and Co-Plaintiff.
(Attach evidence and a list of witnesses at the bottom if applicable)
V. Evidence
DATED: This 16 day of July 2026
[/case]