Lawsuit: Adjourned Steveshat v. vortxhuntr [2023] DCR 11

[Childsuppo0rt311]

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION

Steveshat (Childsupp0rt311 representing)
Plaintiff

v.

vortxhuntr
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows: The Plaintiff was offering an Auto9 pistol that the defendant wanted to purchase. After bargaining they came to an agreement of $340 split into two payments, one prior to the transaction and one following its occurrence. However, the defendant only paid the first half and remitted $150 instead of the expected $170. The defendant then refused to pay the other in full, thus the plaintiff sues for breach of contract .



I. PARTIES
1. Steveshat, Plaintiff.
2. Vortxhuntr, Defendant


II. FACTS

1. The Plaintiff was offering an Auto9 pistol and a tutorial on how to make money (see Exhibit 1)
2. The Defendant saw the offer and was enticed and agreed to meet the plaintiff at spawn (see Exhibit 1)
3. The Plaintiff makes the initial offer of $400 for the Auto9 pistol, the defendant negotiates. (see Exhibit 1)
4. They come to a bargained price of $340 split into two installments, one made prior to and the other made after the exchange. (see Exhibit 2)
5. Defendant pays $150 instead of the expected $170 (see Exhibit 3)
6. Plaintiff had an issue with giving the Auto9 pistol at first but managed to drop the firearm in the wilderness with help from SomeHuman to the defendant. (see Exhibit 2)
7. Plaintiff then requests that they receive the remaining $190 as the second installment for the firearm which the defendant refuses to do. (see Exhibit 4)
8. Plaintiff claims he was scammed, defendant offers to give the firearm and money back but then refuses to do so (see Exhibit 4)
9. Defendant tells plaintiff to sue him for the gun back (Exhibit 4)

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. Defendant breached their side of the contract by failing to pay the consideration in full.
2. Defendant’s breach of contract allows the plaintiff to request promissory estoppel to null and void the contract.


IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:

1. For the Contract to be null and void
2. Either the Auto 9 Pistol or $340 dollars in compensatory damages.
3. $300 in punitive damages
4. $98 in legal fees

...

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 1st day of June, 2023.

(Exhibit 1)

(Exhibit 2)

(Exhibit 3)

(Exhibit 4)

 

[Banana]

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

The Defendant is required to appear before the District Court in the case of steveshat v. vortxhuntr [2023] DCR 11

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.​

 

[steveshat]

Your honor I request a default judgement as the defendant has not given a statement in almost 2 weeks.

 

[Banana]

Verdict will be posted shortly.

 

[Banana]

Verdict

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Steveshat v. vortxhuntr [2023] DCR 11

I. PLAINTIFF’S POSITION
1. The Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to the sale of a weapon for $340, to be paid in two installments prior and following the exchange of the weapon.
2. The Plaintiff provided the weapon following the first installment.
3. The Defendant refused to pay the second installment and told the Plaintiff to sue them.

II. DEFENSE’S POSITION
1. The Defendant failed to appear in court.

III. COURT’S OPINION
1. It is the opinion of the Court that the terms of the contract in this case were clear, including what was to be exchanged, for what price, and how it was to be paid.
2. The acceptance of the contract was a statement of “fine” from the Plaintiff, but it is the opinion of the Court that both parties knew that the Plaintiff was agreeing to the final terms stated by the Defendant.
3. The Defendant’s statement that there was confusion on the price of the weapon, claiming that the two parties “made a deal on 150” does not make sense, as from the chat logs, the number 150 is never mentioned.
4. It is not apparent why the Defendant sent $150 initially instead of the $170 (50% of $340) payment the two parties apparently agreed upon, however it is apparent that this was the only payment made.
5. From the chat logs, it is clear that the Plaintiff did transfer the weapon and the Defendant then refused to return the weapon or make the remainder of the payment agreed upon.
6. This makes the Defendant liable for the remaining amount of the payment.

IV. VERDICT
I find in favor of the Plaintiff in the amount of $288, with $190 for the remaining payment specified in the agreement, and $98 in legal fees.
I order that the Defendant be fined $288 and the Plaintiff be unfined the same amount by the DOJ.

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