Lawsuit: Adjourned Sujal1048J v. YoroZy [2026] DCR 89

[MaxvEtten]

Case Filing

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


Sujal1048J
Plaintiff

v.

YoroZy
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF

On the 12th of June at approximately 17:00, the Plaintiff, Sujal1048J, sent a message in chat looking to buy a car. The Defendant, YoroZy, responded saying he had one for sale for $1,200. The Defendant denied requests to show the car, and after the Plaintiff paid the requested amount, the Defendant gave him a paper, giving the location of the car. The Plaintiff found no car on the location, and the Defendant requested $400 more to build the car, and refusing to return the previous $1200.

I. PARTIES

1. Sujal1048J, Plaintiff
2. YoroZy, Defendant
3. MaxvEtten, legal representative for Plaintiff (Proof below)

II. FACTS

1. At 17:00 on June 12th, the Plaintiff sent a message in chat looking to buy a car.
2. The Defendant responded, saying he was selling one for $1,200.
3. The Plaintiff was looking to buy a car, to become a Deliveryman at a business called 'Redmont Express'.
4. The Plaintiff and Defendant met up near spawn, the Plaintiff requested the Defendant to show the car, the Defendant refused, saying his boss' policy was to not take the car out of the chest before fully selling it.
5. The Plaintiff suggested to pay $600 first, then to recieve the car, and then pay $600 after. The Defendant agreed, and the Plaintiff then instantly paid the Defendant $600.
6. The Defendant refused to give the car, referring to his boss' policy once again. The Plaintiff then paid another $600, in total paying the full amount of $1,200.
7. The Defendant gave the Plaintiff the following: 5 Sticks, 1 Rabit Foot, 1 Paper Named 'Drinks Drgs Gambling! /directions start casino'. Claiming that the Plaintiff would recieve the vehicle from an individual at the location mentioned on the paper.
8. The Defendant previously claimed he had the car on him in a chest, which he now proves untrue.
9. The Defendant offered to go get it for $400, the Plaintiff refused the offer, and went to the location himself.
10. The Plaintiff arrived on the location, and noticed no one was there. A few minutes later the Defendant arrived, telling him he would charge $400 to build the car.
11. The Plaintiff got suspicious, and refused to pay an additional $400, on top of that he requested the $1,200 to be refunded, which the Defendant refused.
12. The Defendant's actions caused harm to the Plaintiff, and created a valid case for civil damages arising from criminal conduct.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF


Claim I: Theft
1. According to the Criminal Code Act, when a player takes property belonging to another without consent and intends to permanently deprive the owner of it, it falls under Theft.
2. While the Plaintiff did give consent by willingly paying the Defendant, the consent was induced by a false promise and therefore was not meaningful consent.
3. So the Defendant's conduct does satisfies this definition because the Defendant kept $1,200 after promising the Plaintiff the car and retained it despite the Plaintiff's request for its return.
4. Under Redmont law, crimes may be used to seek civil damages, and civil proceedings may proceed independently of any criminal prosecution.

Claim II: Compensatory Damages
1. The Plaintiff seeks Compensatory Damages, in the amount of $1,200 for the value of the stolen property.

Claim III: Nominal Damages arising from Theft
1. The Plaintiff seeks nominal damages because the Defendant's theft violated the Plaintiff's property rights beyond the direct financial loss suffered.
2. The Plaintiff seeks $2,500 in nominal damages. This amount is based on the severity of the Defendant's conduct. The Defendant intentionally and unlawfully stole property belonging to the Plaintiff without legal justification. The Defendant's actions deprived the Plaintiff of their lawful property and violated the Plaintiff's property rights. The requested sum is intended to compensate the Plaintiff for the loss suffered and to deter similar conduct in the future.

Claim IV: Consequential Damages
1. The Plaintiff applied for a job at 'Redmont Express' (Prior to the incident), where the weekly pay usually is around $140 / Week.
2. The Plaintiff intended to use the purchased vehicle to begin employment as a Delivery Man. Due to the Defendant's failure to deliver the vehicle, the Plaintiff was unable to pursue this employment opportunity and suffered lost earning potential. The Plaintiff seeks consequential damages in an amount to be determined by the Court.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. $3,700 consisting of:
a. $1,200 in Compensatory Damages
b. $2,500 in Nominal Damages arising from Theft
2. Consequential Damages, in the ammount that the court finds just and proper.
3. Any applicable legal fees awarded to the prevailing party.
4. Any other relief the Court finds just and proper.

V. EVIDENCE

P-001: A screenshot, confirming the payments made to the Defendant by the Plaintiff.

Spoiler: P-001

P-002: A screenshot, confirming the Defendant telling the plaintiff going to a diffrent location to recieve the car, while he previously claimed he had it on him.

Spoiler: P-002

P-003: A screenshot, proving the Plaintiff's intention was to use the car for delivery services.

Spoiler: P-003

Spoiler: Proof Of Representation

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 12th day of June 2026

 

[Dogeington]

Writ of Summons

@YoroZy is required to appear before the District Court in the case of Sujal1048J v. YoroZy [2026] DCR 89.

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 Court Rules and Procedures, including the option of an in-game trial should both parties request one.

 

[Matthew100x]

Does the plaintiff still wish to pursue this case?

 

[Sujal1048]

Does the plaintiff still wish to pursue this case?

Your honor, it seems that the Attorney has gone missing, I would like to continue pursuing the case.

 

[Matthew100x]

Your honor, it seems that the Attorney has gone missing, I would like to continue pursuing the case.

Can you give me a basis of law to pursue this claim? The claim for relief is not cognizable because theft is not recognized as a civil action.

 

[Sujal1048]

Can you give me a basis of law to pursue this claim? The claim for relief is not cognizable because theft is not recognized as a civil action.

Your honor, this would be Misleading Conduct in trade as well as Failure to Deliver Promised Goods

 

[Poker]

Do the plaintiffs still have interest in pursuing this case? please, respond within 48 hours @Sujal1048 Otherwise, this case will be dismissed without prejudice.

 

[Sujal1048]

Do the plaintiffs still have interest in pursuing this case? please, respond within 48 hours @Sujal1048 Otherwise, this case will be dismissed without prejudice.

Yes, your Honour.

 

[Poker]

Yes, your Honour.

This court will proceed into sua sponte inquest as per rule 3.6.1. Are you representing yourself? or are you delegating this case to another lawyer? you have 72 hours to assign someone (or yourself, as you're a barrister).

 

[Sujal1048]

This court will proceed into sua sponte inquest as per rule 3.6.1. Are you representing yourself? or are you delegating this case to another lawyer? you have 72 hours to assign someone (or yourself, as you're a barrister).

I will be representing myself, your Honour.

 

[Poker]

I will be representing myself, your Honour.

In line with Rule 3.6.2, the court requires Plaintiff to develop and argue the case prior to adjudication.
The vacate deadline is 12/September/26 at 16:13 UTC.

Discovery shall last until 08/September/26 at 16:13 UTC. If discovery is not required, Plaintiff may proceed to phase (b) of the inquest, requesting Witness Testimony, Subpoenas, and Writs.

As Plaintiff won't be able to amend the complaint during discovery, this Court finds reasonable to modify phase (c) of the inquest. Additionaly to submit a written brief containing a factual narrative of the controversy and all relevant legal arguments, plaintiff may include Claims to Relief and Prayers to Relief that are not present on original Complaint.

 

[Sujal1048]

In line with Rule 3.6.2, the court requires Plaintiff to develop and argue the case prior to adjudication.
The vacate deadline is 12/September/26 at 16:13 UTC.

Discovery shall last until 08/September/26 at 16:13 UTC. If discovery is not required, Plaintiff may proceed to phase (b) of the inquest, requesting Witness Testimony, Subpoenas, and Writs.

As Plaintiff won't be able to amend the complaint during discovery, this Court finds reasonable to modify phase (c) of the inquest. Additionaly to submit a written brief containing a factual narrative of the controversy and all relevant legal arguments, plaintiff may include Claims to Relief and Prayers to Relief that are not present on original Complaint.

Case Filing

Your Honour,

In accordance with the Court's order under Rules 3.6.1 and 3.6.2, I will be representing myself and will develop and argue my case prior to adjudication.

I would like to clarify and develop the legal basis of my claim. I am not relying on Theft as an independent civil cause of action. Instead, I intend to pursue the following civil claims arising from the same transaction:

1. Breach of Contract — RCCA Part VI, §1​

A valid contract was formed between myself and the Defendant under the requirements for contract formation. The Defendant offered to provide me with a vehicle for $1,200. I accepted that offer and provided the agreed consideration of $1,200.

The Defendant failed to provide the vehicle after receiving the full payment. Instead, the Defendant provided me with a paper directing me to another location and subsequently requested an additional $400 to build the vehicle.

I therefore submit that the Defendant failed to perform his obligation under the agreement without lawful excuse.

Relevant Case Authority — Rqtting v. .Hannah35210 [2026] DCR 107

The reasoning in Rqtting v. .Hannah35210 [2026] DCR 107 is relevant to the present case. In that case, the Court found that a valid contract existed where the parties had agreed upon the goods to be exchanged, the price, and the transaction, and the Court subsequently found that the Defendant had breached the contract by failing to deliver the promised goods after payment.

The Court also found the conduct in that case to constitute Misleading Conduct in Trade or Commerce and Failure to Deliver Goods or Services.

The present case is materially similar. The Defendant offered to sell me a vehicle for $1,200, I accepted the offer and paid the agreed $1,200 in full, and the Defendant subsequently failed to provide the vehicle. Instead, after receiving the full agreed payment, the Defendant requested an additional $400 to build the vehicle.

I therefore submit that the reasoning in Rqtting supports a finding that a valid contract existed between the parties and that the Defendant breached that contract by failing to deliver the agreed vehicle.

2. Misleading Conduct in Trade or Commerce — RCCA Part VI, §3​

The Defendant represented that he was selling me a vehicle for $1,200 and represented that the vehicle was already available, including stating that he had the vehicle in a chest. I relied upon these representations when deciding to enter the transaction and provide the Defendant with $1,200.

After receiving the full payment, the Defendant did not provide the vehicle and instead directed me to another location. The Defendant subsequently stated that an additional $400 would be required to build the vehicle.

I submit that the Defendant's representation concerning the availability of the vehicle was misleading or deceptive, or was likely to mislead or deceive, in connection with the sale of goods. The representation was material to my decision to enter the transaction and make payment.

The Defendant's subsequent failure to provide the vehicle, together with the request for an additional $400 after the agreed purchase price had already been paid, is further relevant to the circumstances surrounding that representation.

3. Failure to Deliver Goods or Services — RCCA Part VI, §4​

The Defendant agreed to supply a vehicle in exchange for $1,200. I fulfilled my obligation by paying the agreed amount in full, yet the Defendant failed to deliver the vehicle.

The Defendant subsequently requested an additional $400 to build the vehicle, despite the agreed purchase price already having been paid in full.

I submit that the Defendant therefore failed to deliver the goods agreed upon under the transaction and that no lawful excuse for the failure to deliver was communicated to me.

Evidence​

The evidence currently available to me is as follows:

P-001 demonstrates the $1,200 payment made to the Defendant.

P-002 demonstrates the Defendant's statements concerning the transaction and where I was to receive the vehicle, and is relevant to the representations made concerning the vehicle.

P-003 demonstrates my intended use of the vehicle for delivery work and the purpose for which I sought to purchase it.

I do not have any additional witnesses or evidence to present at this time, and I do not require additional subpoenas or writs. I am therefore prepared to proceed with the matter based on the evidence currently before the Court.

Relief Sought​

I respectfully request:

1. $1,200 in compensatory damages, representing the amount paid to the Defendant for the vehicle;
2. Appropriate damages or civil penalties available for the Defendant's misleading conduct;
3. Appropriate damages or civil penalties available for the Defendant's failure to deliver the promised vehicle;
4. Legal fees, where permitted by law; and
5. Any other relief the Court considers just and proper.

I respectfully submit that the evidence demonstrates that a valid transaction occurred, that I fulfilled my obligation by paying the agreed $1,200, and that the Defendant failed to provide the vehicle that was agreed upon after receiving my payment.

Respectfully submitted,
Sujal1048J

 

[Poker]

Do the Plaintiff have more evidence? I need it, this is a shortened modified civil procedure, not a Default on Failure to Defense Judgement.

I need it especially for facts 1,2 and 7. I remind you that you can move this court for a warrant compelling the staff team to produce chat logs and drop logs if you don't have the evidence.

 

[Sujal1048]

Do the Plaintiff have more evidence? I need it, this is a shortened modified civil procedure, not a Default on Failure to Defense Judgement.

I need it especially for facts 1,2 and 7. I remind you that you can move this court for a warrant compelling the staff team to produce chat logs and drop logs if you don't have the evidence.

Case Filing

MOTION FOR WARRANT TO PRODUCE CHAT AND ITEM DROP LOGS​

Your Honour,

In response to the Court's request for additional evidence, the Plaintiff respectfully moves this Court for a warrant or other appropriate Court order compelling the Staff Team to produce relevant chat logs and item drop logs concerning the transaction between the Plaintiff, Sujal1048J, and the Defendant, YoroZy, on 12 June 2026.

The Plaintiff does not possess the complete server records relating to the transaction. These records are necessary to establish the circumstances surrounding the transaction and are particularly relevant to the factual issues identified by the Court, including Facts 1, 2, and 7.

I. Chat Logs Requested​

The Plaintiff respectfully requests staff-verifiable chat logs concerning Sujal1048J and YoroZy from 12 June 2026, approximately 14:00 UTC through 15:00 UTC.

The relevant communications and transaction took place in or around CBD001, CBD002, and the subplot "Casino" in C457. The Plaintiff therefore requests that the Staff Team search the relevant chat records associated with these locations during the specified period.

The Plaintiff specifically states that he initially asked in Global Chat whether anyone was selling a car, after which the Defendant responded to the Plaintiff through Direct Messages regarding the sale.

The Plaintiff therefore requests that the Court order the Staff Team to preserve and produce any lawfully disclosable records relating to this interaction, including the initial Global Chat message and any subsequent server communications that Staff is permitted to disclose under its policies.

If the Court determines that the Defendant's Direct Messages may be compelled or otherwise disclosed pursuant to a warrant, the Plaintiff respectfully requests that the relevant Direct Messages between Sujal1048J and YoroZy concerning the vehicle transaction during this period also be produced.

These communications are relevant to establishing:

1. That the Plaintiff was seeking to purchase a vehicle;
2. That the Defendant responded to the Plaintiff regarding a vehicle for sale;
3. The representations made by the Defendant concerning the vehicle;
4. The agreed price and terms of the transaction;
5. The circumstances surrounding the Plaintiff's payment of $1,200; and
6. The Defendant's subsequent statements concerning delivery of the vehicle.

II. Item Drop Logs Requested​

The Plaintiff also respectfully requests a warrant directing the Staff Team to produce the relevant item drop logs for the transaction.

The requested records should cover 12 June 2026, approximately 14:00 UTC through 16:00 UTC, in or around CBD001, CBD002, and the subplot "Casino" in C457, involving the following items:

• 5 sticks
• 1 rabbit foot
• 1 paper named 'Drinks Drgs Gambling! /directions start casino'

The Plaintiff states that these items were provided by the Defendant during the transaction after the Plaintiff had paid the agreed $1,200 for the vehicle.

The requested drop logs are relevant to corroborating the Plaintiff's account of the transaction and establishing that these items were provided by the Defendant in connection with the promised vehicle.

III. Relevance and Necessity​

The requested records are material to the Plaintiff's claims for Breach of Contract, Misleading Conduct in Trade or Commerce, and Failure to Deliver Goods or Services.

The Plaintiff currently possesses evidence demonstrating the two $600 payments totaling $1,200, but does not possess the complete server records that would establish the surrounding communications and item exchanges.

The requested records would provide objective, staff-verifiable evidence concerning the transaction rather than requiring the Court to rely solely upon the parties' recollection of events.

The Plaintiff has provided a defined date, time period, parties, locations, and specific items sought. The request is therefore intended to be narrowly tailored to the transaction at issue and not constitute a general or unrestricted search of the parties' records.

IV. Prayer​

The Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Honourable Court:

1. Issue a warrant or other appropriate Court order directing the Staff Team to produce the requested staff-verifiable chat logs from 12 June 2026, approximately 14:00–15:00 UTC, concerning the Plaintiff and Defendant;
2. Direct the Staff Team to search the relevant records associated with CBD001, CBD002, and the subplot "Casino" in C457;
3. Direct the Staff Team to produce any lawfully disclosable communications concerning the vehicle transaction between Sujal1048J and YoroZy during the specified period;
4. Issue a warrant directing the Staff Team to produce the relevant item drop logs for 5 sticks, 1 rabbit foot, and 1 paper during the specified period and at the identified locations; and
5. Grant any other relief the Court considers just and proper.

V. Evidence​

P-004 Screenshot of the .csv file obtained from '/transactions export Sujal1048J'

View attachment 98512

Spoiler: P-004

Respectfully submitted,
Sujal1048J

 

[Sujal1048]

Case Filing

MOTION FOR WARRANT TO PRODUCE CHAT AND ITEM DROP LOGS​

Your Honour,

In response to the Court's request for additional evidence, the Plaintiff respectfully moves this Court for a warrant or other appropriate Court order compelling the Staff Team to produce relevant chat logs and item drop logs concerning the transaction between the Plaintiff, Sujal1048J, and the Defendant, YoroZy, on 12 June 2026.

The Plaintiff does not possess the complete server records relating to the transaction. These records are necessary to establish the circumstances surrounding the transaction and are particularly relevant to the factual issues identified by the Court, including Facts 1, 2, and 7.

I. Chat Logs Requested​

The Plaintiff respectfully requests staff-verifiable chat logs concerning Sujal1048J and YoroZy from 12 June 2026, approximately 14:00 UTC through 15:00 UTC.

The relevant communications and transaction took place in or around CBD001, CBD002, and the subplot "Casino" in C457. The Plaintiff therefore requests that the Staff Team search the relevant chat records associated with these locations during the specified period.

The Plaintiff specifically states that he initially asked in Global Chat whether anyone was selling a car, after which the Defendant responded to the Plaintiff through Direct Messages regarding the sale.

The Plaintiff therefore requests that the Court order the Staff Team to preserve and produce any lawfully disclosable records relating to this interaction, including the initial Global Chat message and any subsequent server communications that Staff is permitted to disclose under its policies.

If the Court determines that the Defendant's Direct Messages may be compelled or otherwise disclosed pursuant to a warrant, the Plaintiff respectfully requests that the relevant Direct Messages between Sujal1048J and YoroZy concerning the vehicle transaction during this period also be produced.

These communications are relevant to establishing:

1. That the Plaintiff was seeking to purchase a vehicle;
2. That the Defendant responded to the Plaintiff regarding a vehicle for sale;
3. The representations made by the Defendant concerning the vehicle;
4. The agreed price and terms of the transaction;
5. The circumstances surrounding the Plaintiff's payment of $1,200; and
6. The Defendant's subsequent statements concerning delivery of the vehicle.

II. Item Drop Logs Requested​

The Plaintiff also respectfully requests a warrant directing the Staff Team to produce the relevant item drop logs for the transaction.

The requested records should cover 12 June 2026, approximately 14:00 UTC through 16:00 UTC, in or around CBD001, CBD002, and the subplot "Casino" in C457, involving the following items:

• 5 sticks
• 1 rabbit foot
• 1 paper named 'Drinks Drgs Gambling! /directions start casino'

The Plaintiff states that these items were provided by the Defendant during the transaction after the Plaintiff had paid the agreed $1,200 for the vehicle.

The requested drop logs are relevant to corroborating the Plaintiff's account of the transaction and establishing that these items were provided by the Defendant in connection with the promised vehicle.

III. Relevance and Necessity​

The requested records are material to the Plaintiff's claims for Breach of Contract, Misleading Conduct in Trade or Commerce, and Failure to Deliver Goods or Services.

The Plaintiff currently possesses evidence demonstrating the two $600 payments totaling $1,200, but does not possess the complete server records that would establish the surrounding communications and item exchanges.

The requested records would provide objective, staff-verifiable evidence concerning the transaction rather than requiring the Court to rely solely upon the parties' recollection of events.

The Plaintiff has provided a defined date, time period, parties, locations, and specific items sought. The request is therefore intended to be narrowly tailored to the transaction at issue and not constitute a general or unrestricted search of the parties' records.

IV. Prayer​

The Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Honourable Court:

1. Issue a warrant or other appropriate Court order directing the Staff Team to produce the requested staff-verifiable chat logs from 12 June 2026, approximately 14:00–15:00 UTC, concerning the Plaintiff and Defendant;
2. Direct the Staff Team to search the relevant records associated with CBD001, CBD002, and the subplot "Casino" in C457;
3. Direct the Staff Team to produce any lawfully disclosable communications concerning the vehicle transaction between Sujal1048J and YoroZy during the specified period;
4. Issue a warrant directing the Staff Team to produce the relevant item drop logs for 5 sticks, 1 rabbit foot, and 1 paper during the specified period and at the identified locations; and
5. Grant any other relief the Court considers just and proper.

V. Evidence​

P-004 Screenshot of the .csv file obtained from '/transactions export Sujal1048J'

View attachment 98512

Spoiler: P-004

View attachment 98513

Respectfully submitted,
Sujal1048J

Please note, edited Part V to fix the formatting of /transactions export Sujal1048J as it look redacted and unreadable in the original post.

 

[Poker]

Court Order

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Order to Compel

On motion from Plaintiff, and in probable cause of Misleading Conduct in Trade or Commerce and Failure to Deliver Goods or Services, the Court orders the Staff Team (@staff) the production of logs as following

1) Chat Logs

Production of in-game chat logs, on Global, Murmur and Local, regarding a negotiation of a car between Sujal1048J and YoroZy (Sujal1048J allowed this in the motion above), approximately 14:00 UTC through 15:00 UTC.

2) Drop Logs

Production of drop logs of 5 sticks, 1 rabbit foot, 1 paper named 'Drinks Drgs Gambling! /directions start casino', approximately 14:00 UTC through 16:00 UTC, in or around CBD001, CBD002, and the subplot "Casino" in C457.

The Court will open a staff ticket and request that a Staff Team respond in this thread if possible. No deadline shall be affixed to this order. Deadline for this case is tolled until staff decision.

 

[Poker]

Respectively, STAFF-001 and STAFF-002

 

[Poker]

Court pending a verdict

 

[Poker]

Verdict

SUMMARY OF CONTROVERSY
On June 12th, the Plaintiff agreed to purchase a vehicle from the Defendant for $1,200. After the Plaintiff paid the full amount, the Defendant failed to provide the vehicle, instead giving him several unrelated items (a rabbit food, a paper and 5 sticks) and directing him to another location to supposedly receive it. When the Plaintiff arrived, no vehicle was provided, and the Defendant demanded an additional $400 to build it. The Plaintiff refused and requested a refund of the $1,200, which the Defendant also refused to provide.

FINDINGS OF EVIDENCE
Plaintiff paid 1,200$ to defendant At 17:00 on June 12th while looking to buy a car (P-001, STAFF-002). He was directly talking to defendant, which said he could give the map for the car (P-002). Drops logs shows Defendant dropping a rabbit foot and a paper called "Drinks Drgs Gambling! /directions start casino" (STAFF-001).

COURT OPINION
JSA, Part II, 3(1)(a) states that In a civil proceeding, the litigant with the burden of proof must prove the case on a balance of probabilities. Our question here is, in this balance of probabilities, can the evidence found lead to civil charges?

While analyzing, it's high probable that Plaintiff indeed negotiated and purchased a car from the defendant, as per STAFF-02, P-001 and P-002. The evidence indicate that a negotiation was happening. As such, the following facts found under a balance of probabilities will be used for verdict purposes.

1. At 17:00 on June 12th, the Plaintiff sent a message in chat looking to buy a car.
2. The Defendant responded, saying he was selling one for $1,200.
3. The Plaintiff was looking to buy a car, to become a Deliveryman at a business called 'Redmont Express'.
5. The Plaintiff suggested to pay $600 first, then to recieve the car, and then pay $600 after. The Defendant agreed, and the Plaintiff then instantly paid the Defendant $600.
6. The Defendant refused to give the car, referring to his boss' policy once again. The Plaintiff then paid another $600, in total paying the full amount of $1,200.
7. The Defendant gave the Plaintiff the following: 5 Sticks, 1 Rabit Foot, 1 Paper Named 'Drinks Drgs Gambling! /directions start casino'. Claiming that the Plaintiff would recieve the vehicle from an individual at the location mentioned on the paper.
11. The Plaintiff got suspicious, and refused to pay an additional $400, on top of that he requested the $1,200 to be refunded, which the Defendant refused.

From the probable facts, a contract was formed.

1) Offer: Defendant offered a car for 1,200$
2) Acceptance: The Defendant accepted the offer.
3) Consideration: The deal was a car for 1,200$
4) Intent: Both parties meet at an designated place to trade
5) Capacity: Even thought there is no playtime evidence, the Defendant was the one who offered the car, instructed the Plaintiff to send the payment, and ultimately said he was going to give the car for the Plaintiff. Therefore, based on the facts of this case, low playtime alone would not enough to defeat capacity. (MrTheTanTan v. jamie4432 [2026] DCR 162, SimplifiedMax v. L4ndaakk [2026] DCR 28)

As such, the trade is enforceable.

The Breach of Contract

Defendant had a valid contract with Plaintiff, and Defendant breached the contract by failing to provide the vehicle after Plaintiff fulfilled his payment obligations. None of the lawful excuses under the Contracts Act apply to the facts established by this Court. Therefore, Defendant is liable for the breach of contract. As such, many liabilities arise.

Misleading Conduct in Trade or Commerce

Conduct in Trade or Commerce
Violation Type: Intentional/Negligent
Remedy: Up to 250 Civil Penalty Units; Rescission
A person commits a violation if the person:
(a) engages in conduct that is misleading, deceptive, or likely to mislead or deceive 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.
Relevant Law:

The Defendant's conduct was misleading. The Defendant represented that he was selling a vehicle for $1,200 and accepted the Plaintiff's double 600$ payments. However, the Defendant, instead, provided unrelated items. The conduct does not constitutes puffery and the established facts do not indicate that the Plaintiff failed to exercise reasonable care.

THEREFORE, claim for Misleading Conduct in Trade or Commerce is SUSTAINED.

Failure to Deliver Goods or Services

Failure to Deliver Goods or Services
Violation Type: Strict Liability
Remedy: Up to 200 Civil Penalty Units; Specific performance
A person commits a violation if the person:
(a) fails without lawful excuse to deliver goods or services that they have agreed to supply under a valid transaction or contract.
Relevant Law:

The Defendant agreed to supply the Plaintiff with a vehicle in exchange for $1,200. As established above, a valid and enforceable contract was formed between the parties. The Plaintiff fulfilled his payment obligation by paying the Defendant the full agreed amount of $1,200. However, the Defendant never delivered the vehicle, instead he dropper unrelated items.

THEREFORE, Failure to Deliver Goods or Services is SUSTAINED.

Theft

Theft
Offence Type: Summary
Penalty: 10 Penalty Units; 10 minutes imprisonment; Restitution of the property or its value.
A person or legal entity commits an offence if that person or legal entity:
(a) takes property belonging to another without consent; and
(b) intends to:
(i) permanently deprive the owner of it; or
(ii) use it without authorization.
This offence shall not occur where:
(c) The taker reasonably believed they had the owner's consent; or
(d) The property was abandoned; or
(e) The taking of property was otherwise authorized by law.
Relevant Law: Theft Criminalization Act

The Defendant took property belonging to the Plaintiff with the Plaintiff's consent (/pay). The initial taking of the money was authorized by the Plaintiff under a valid contract, thereby does not satisfy this element of Theft.

THEREFORE, Theft is NOT SUSTAINED.

Compensatory Damages

Compensatory Damages
(1) Definition:
(a) Compensatory damages are the restoration of what the party has lost.

(2) Award:
(a) Compensatory damages will not be awarded without proof of pecuniary loss, including compensation for harm to property, harm to earning capacity, and the creation of liabilities; unless they are special damage.
(b) Compensatory damages are limited to either the authorised statute’s limit or the actual amount of damages, whichever is lower.

(3) Diminution of Award:
(a) Duty to Mitigate - A party’s obligation to make reasonable efforts to limit the harm they suffer from another party’s actions. In order to reduce an award based on this defence, a party must prove that the other side did not exhaust reasonable measures to protect their own interest.
(i) This defence does not bar or diminish a plaintiff’s claim if a defendant breached a contract that they had been conforming to; and
(ii) A party does not need to exhaust all measures to prove that they did attempt to mitigate.
(b) Contributory Negligence - Conduct on the part of the plaintiff which falls below the standard to which he should conform for their own protection, and which is a legally contributing cause cooperating with the negligence of the defendant in bringing about the plaintiff's harm.
(i) Whatever percentage of liability proven for contributory negligence by the defendant shall be deducted from the plaintiff’s compensatory damages award, up to a maximum of 50%

Plaintiff provided proof of creation of liability (1,200$ from the Breach of Contract).

THEREFORE, Compensatory Damages is SUSTAINED

Nominal Damages

Nominal Damages
(1) Definition:
(a) Nominal damages are a trivial sum of money given as recognition that a legal cause of action has been established, even though the plaintiff has suffered no substantial loss and is not entitled to any other damages.

(2) Award:
(a) Nominal damages shall not exceed $7,500.

(3) Diminution of Award:
(a) There shall be no diminution of award or defences to nominal damages.

Nominal Damages are only awarded when no other damage is.

THEREFORE, Nominal Damages is NOT SUSTAINED
Consequential Damages

Consequential Damages
(1) Definition:
(a) Consequential Damages are an award that a party can collect against an opposing party for damages that are otherwise incalculable. These damages include, but are not limited to:
(i) Humiliation - Situations in which a person has been disgraced, belittled or made to look foolish.
(ii) Worsening of Conditions - Situations in which damage is caused by a party that caused harm to another party that were unforeseen or unrelated to the original harm.
(iii) Loss of Enjoyment - Situations in which an injured party loses, or has diminished, their ability to engage in certain activities in the way that the injured party did before the harm.
(b) Humiliation and Loss of Enjoyment may be proven by witness testimony and reasonable person tests, or any other mechanism the presiding judicial officer considers persuasive.

(2) Award:
(a) Consequential damages must be proven on the balance of probabilities that a reasonable person, when subjected to the same circumstances, would also experience the same type of consequential damage.
(b) A single claim of consequential damages shall not exceed $50,000.
(c) The cap on consequential damages shall not apply when punitive damages are also awarded.

(3) Diminution of Award:
(a) In assessing a consequential damage award, the judicial officer must review the available evidence and deny awards that do not have sufficient proof according to the standard of a balance of probabilities.

Consequential Damages are an award that a party can collect against an opposing party for damages that are otherwise incalculable. The Congress placed 3 mains conditions where this could be granted: humilation, worsening of conditions and loss of enjoyment.

From the Facts, Plaintiff wanted to use the car to work as a delivery driver, fitting, therefore, in section (a)(ii) of the Consequential Damages. However, this Court deems there is not enough evidence to sustain this claim.

In YeetGlazer v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] FCR 76 the Honorable Judge dearev stated

This Court finds that the Plaintiff has not met the evidentiary burden required to sustain this claim. No business records, rental contracts, financial statements, or revenue projections have been placed before the Court. The Plaintiff has not identified specific tenants, specific contracts, or specific commercial arrangements that were disrupted by the two-week deprivation. This Court cannot award $300,000 on the basis of unsubstantiated assertions.

In this case, Plaintiff submits P-003, "A screenshot, proving the Plaintiff's intention was to use the car for delivery services". No contract, financial statement, revenue projection have been placed before the Court. Plaintiff, similarly to [2025] FCR 76, has not substantiated his consequential damages claims.

THEREFORE, Consequential Damages is NOT SUSTAINED

DECISION

Thereby, this Court rules in favor of the Plaintiff with modified prayers.

1. Compensatory Damages - GRANTED - 1,200$
2. Misleading Conduct - GRANTED - 1,200$
3. Failure to Deliver Goods - DENIED (double recovery) (see zPokebr_ v. mvchrelle [2026] DCR 131)
4. Legal Fees - GRANTED - 3,000$
5. Nominal Damages - DENIED
6. Consequential Damages - DENIED

@Sujal1048 shall be awarded 5,400 R$ against YoroZy