Lawsuit: Adjourned Tello Bank v. Jaynormous [2022] FCR 41

[Cooleagles]

IN THE COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT​

CIVIL ACTION


Tello (Cooleagles Representing)
Plaintiff

v.

Jaynormous
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows: My client, Tello (Hamilton City Bank at the time the agreement was made) and the Defendant reached an agreement in which my client would loan out $40,000 with a 10% interest ($44,000). The loan was initially due one month from when it was delivered; yet, the Defendant has yet to pay back the loan.

I. PARTIES
1. Tello
2. Jaynormous

II. FACTS
1. The Defendant was given a loan of $40,000 ($44,000 with interest).
2. The Defendant was to pay back the loan, in full, a month following receiving the loan.
2. Despite this due date, the Defendant has yet to have fully paid back the loan and completed their part of the contract.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. Although there was no written contract with an official signature, all points for a contract to be valid, offer, acceptance, consideration, and capacity were met in the making of this agreement.

2. Offer - The CLF act requires that 4 points are met for an offer to be valid: the offer must be an unequivocal statement of terms, not be vague or ambiguous, be clearly communicated, and be known and understood by the offeree. Evidence 2 clearly shows this in the following lines,
“However, the loan for 40k has been approved and we’ll get it to you.”
“The interest is as previously discussed, 10%.”
“The loan can be initially due in one month.”
Notice that throughout the interaction, the Defendant raises no concerns or questions about the presented terms; moreover, it is clear and well-understood to the Defendant of the presented agreement and offer.

3. Acceptance - The CLF Act states that an acceptance is made when the offeree, “essentially say yes to the offer.” Throughout the interaction, the Defendant is shown to be very cooperative and accepting of the terms. The Defendant never says no or disagrees with any of the aspects of the agreement.

4. Consideration - The CLF Act states that consideration is the “price to be paid under a contract,” moreover, it ensures that the contract is a two-way street instead of a single promise. This point is met due to the nature of the agreement itself. The agreement states that my client promises to give the Defendant $40,000 for them to return the original loan + interest a month later.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. $40,000 to repay the original loan
2. $4,000 to repay the 10% interest
3. 250 for legal fees

V. EVIDENCE
1. Proof Of Representation -

2. Discussion of Agreement -

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 22th day of May, 2022

 

[dygyee]

I will summon the Defendant when I get to my computer, however in the mean time, I will request that the Plaintiff sends a more recent photo of the discord conversation so that the court can see dates of when the messages were sent.

 

[dygyee]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
WRIT OF SUMMONS
The defendant is required to appear before the court in the case of the Tello Bank v. Jaynormous [2022] FCR 41. Failure to appear within 48 hours of this summons will result in a default judgment in favor of the plaintiff.

I'd also like to remind both parties to be aware of the Court Rules and Procedures, including the option of an in-game trial should both parties request one.​

 

[Cooleagles]

Your honor,

It is our apologies but the original chat is no longer available as it was separate from the actual company server. The chat shown above was however copied into a company ticket; if you look below at the screenshot you can see it dates back before March 21, 2022.
Our apologies once again.

Thank You.

 

[dygyee]

Verdict

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
VERDICT
Tello Bank v. Jaynormous [2022] FCR 41

I. PLAINTIFF'S POSITION
1. The Plaintiff agreed to loan the Defendant $40,000 in order to paste a build in a plot.
2. They agreed on 1 or 2 months to pay back the loan with 10% interest.
3. After the 2 months, the Defendant never paid back the Plaintiff.

II. DEFENDANT'S POSITION
1. The Defendant failed to appear in court.

III. THE COURT OPINION
1. It is clear that the Defendant asked for, and was given a $40,000 loan by the Plaintiff. Despite agreeing on at most 2 months to pay it back, the Defendant has still not paid back the Plaintiff. Because of this the Plaintiff is owed $40,000 from the Defendant.
2. When it comes to interest, the Plaintiff told the Defendant that there would be 10% interest after the Defendant had already been given the loan. Despite the Plaintiff saying that interest had been discussed previously, they have provided no proof, and the court must make a ruling based on the evidence that has been presented.

IV. DECISION
1. I will rule in a default judgement in favor of the Plaintiff for $40,000, the amount that was given from the Plaintiff to the Defendant. I hereby order the DOJ to fine the Defendant, Jaynormous, $40,000, and unfine the Plaintiff the same amount. In the future, I encourage anyone who is giving or receiving a loan to agree on all of the terms before any money is sent.

The Federal Court thanks all involved.