Lawsuit: Adjourned TristenXL v. ShutUpNoOneAsked [2023] DCR 50

Status
Not open for further replies.
itsBlazeX

itsBlazeX

Citizen
Justice Department
Public Affairs Department
Redmont Bar Assoc.
itsBlazeX
itsBlazeX
recruit
Joined
Jul 5, 2023
Messages
90
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION

TristenXL (Lovely Law Firm representing)
Plaintiff

V.

ShutUpNooneAsked
Defendant


COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

On November 20th, 2023, TristenXL put an Eye Armor Trim Smithing Template up for auction on the DemocracyCraft Discord server (Evidence A). The auction was set to end 12 hours after the last bid. The next day, ShutUpNooneAsked placed a bid for $1,500. Since no one had bid after them, they were declared the winner of the auction. By placing a bid, ShutUpNoOneAsked agreed to a verbal contract to pay TristenXL $1,500, while receiving a Smithing Template in return. After they won the auction, ShutUpNoOneAsked has left the DemocracyCraft community, and TristenXL still has not received their money. Time has been wasted, and TristenXL is stuck with a Smithing Template they want to sell.

I. PARTIES
1. TristenXL (Plaintiff)
2. ShutUpNoOneAsked (Defendant)


II. FACTS
1. On November 20th, 2023, TristenXL posted an auction for an Eye Trim Smithing Template.
2. The auction stated that it would end 12 hours after the last bid.
3. On November 21st, ShutUpNoOneAsked placed a bid for $1,500.
4. On November 21st, ShutUpNoOneAsked was declared the winner of the auction.
5. After winning the auction, ShutUpNoOneAsked quit DemocracyCraft.
6. As of November 30th, 2023, TristenXL still has not been paid for the auction.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. According to the Legal Damages Act (Evidence B), Worsening of any Existing Conditions are, “Situations in which a damage is caused by a party that caused harm to another party that were unforeseen or unrelated to the original harm.” As TristenXL is experiencing financial hardship, the failure of ShutUpNoOneAsked to deliver the funds to TristenXL has negatively impacted TristenXL’s already struggling financial status.
2. By placing a bid, ShutUpNoOneAsked entered a verbal contract to pay TristenXL $1,500 in return for a Smithing Template. ShutUpNoOneAsked violated this contract by failing to pay $1,500 to TristenXL.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
1. $1,500 for ShutUpNoOneAsked’s bid in the auction
2. $500 each day this case progresses from November 21st, 2023, for Worsening of any Existing Conditions. TristenXL has been experiencing financial hardship, and delayed access to their funds has worsened their hardship.
3. $900 in legal fees (or 20% of case value depending on day of verdict)

V. EVIDENCE

Evidence A

Discord - A New Way to Chat with Friends & Communities

Discord is the easiest way to communicate over voice, video, and text. Chat, hang out, and stay close with your friends and communities.
discord.com discord.com

Evidence B

Act of Congress - Legal Damages Act.

A BILL To Define the different forms of damages. The people of the Commonwealth of Redmont, through their elected Representatives in the Congress and the force of law ordained to that Congress by the people through the constitution, do hereby enact the following provisions into law: 1 - Short...
www.democracycraft.net www.democracycraft.net


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 30th day of November 2023
 
Seal_DC.png


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
WRIT OF SUMMONS
The Defendant, @ShutUpNoOneAsked is required to appear before the District Court in the case of TristenXL v. ShutUpNoOneAsked [2023] DCR 50. 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.​
 
@ShutUpNoOneAsked is hereby charged with contempt of court, the DOJ is to fine/jail them appropriately. I will summon a public defender shortly.
 
Seal_DC.png



IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
WRIT OF SUMMONS
@zLost is required to appear before the District Court in the case of TristenXL v. ShutUpNoOneAsked [2023] DCR 50. 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.​
 
@zLost is hereby charged with contempt of court, the DOJ is to fine/jail them appropriately.
 
@zLost will be hit with contempt of court for every 24 hours he isnt here
 
Last edited:
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO DISMISS

The defence move that the complaint in this case be dismissed, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:

1. This is something that the DOC handles, not the courts. It specifically states in the guidelines for #marketplace that:
1702142208713.png

2. Thus, this case does not have any purpose or value, and is frivolous.
3. Along with this, Prayers for Relief 2 should be dismissed as it is not the fault of the Defendant for how long the court process takes.

DATED: This 9th day of December 2023
 
The plantiff has 72 hours to respond to the motion to dismiss
 
zLost said:
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO DISMISS

The defence move that the complaint in this case be dismissed, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:

1. This is something that the DOC handles, not the courts. It specifically states in the guidelines for #marketplace that:
N
2. Thus, this case does not have any purpose or value, and is frivolous.
3. Along with this, Prayers for Relief 2 should be dismissed as it is not the fault of the Defendant for how long the court process takes.

DATED: This 9th day of December 2023
Click to expand...
Your Honor,
Cases such as these have been taken up by he court before.
An example of this precedent can be seen in in the following case:

Lawsuit: Adjourned - Utilitysoup1407 v. Kitje_katje_nl [2023] DCR 26

In the same case the verdict reads "2. An auction does constitute a legally binding contract between two parties. "

Contract law and upholding the ramifications of breaking the bounds outlined inside of a contract is somthing that the court should, and has ruled on in the past.

Further more the "purpose" of this case is to hold the people who willing participate in auctions legally accountable for fulfilling their end of the contract and therefor has legal grounds.

As for the defenses third point on the the dissmisal of prayer of relief 2, by not upholding the defendants side of the deal, the plaintiff can not use the money he would have otherwise had, to further his own wealth in redmont.

By making the plaintiff seek legal action instead of paying my client, the plaintiff can not invest that money into stocks, or even put the money in a bank to gather interest.

Everyday that my client isnt paid, the opertunity loss on it increases, therefor prayer 2 is needed in order to make up for that oppertunity loss.

Thank you,
Your Honor.
 
I will be rejecting the motion to dismiss. There is precedent that cases dealing with auction payments have been heard in court before. Prayer of relief 2 will not be dismissed as actions can have a domino effect whether or not intended which includes long court cases.

We will now be moving forward on to the discovery phase of the trial. Due to the requested damages in this case being less then $10,000 the court will be allowing 7 days for both parties to compile their evidence and witness list and provide it to the court. If agreed upon by both parties this phase may be ended early if nothing further needs to be provided by either side.
 
Your Honor, the defence wishes to skip discovery period.
 
zLost said:
Your Honor, the defence wishes to skip discovery period.
Click to expand...
Your Honor the plaintiff agrees to skip the discovery period.
 
Last edited:
Since both parties argeed to skip we will be moving on to opening statements. The Plantiff has 72 hours to post their opening statement
 
Your Honor, the Defence wishes for summary judgement as it is almost impossible to prove the Defendant not being guilty.
 
Does the Plantiff agree to summary judgement?
 
I will issue a Summary Judgemet shortly
 

Verdict


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
VERDICT
Tristenxl v. Shutupnooneasked [2023] DCR 50


I. PLAINTIFF'S POSITION
1. The Plaintiff created an auction for a smithing template
2. The Defendant won this auction entering into a binding contract
2. The Defendent failed to pay for the item and left the server

II. DEFENDANT'S POSITION
1. The DOC should handle this matter and not the courts

III. THE COURT OPINION
1. The courts have dealt with multiple cases dealing with auctions not being completed before. The DOC may be able to handle these situations but they are not the only ones that can, especially when other loses have occurred.
2. There are many examples of precedent in similar cases that states a legal contract is entered when winning an auction.
3. Both the Plaintiff and Defendant understood the terms of this contract as shown in the evidence when they tried to complete the transaction once before but was stalled due to the Defendant's computer troubles.
4. Due to there being zero evidence provided showing any finanical hardship occurring due to the failure to complete this transaction, the courts will be modifying this Prayer of Relief

IV. VERDICT
The District court rules in favor of the Plantiff and grants a modified Prayer of Relief

The District Court orders the Department of Justice to fine the Defendant $1500 and unfine the Plaintiff the same amount. Once the amount is fully transfered to the Plaintiff the Department of Justice is then going to confiscate the Eye Armor Trim Smithing Template from the Plaintiff and transfer it to the Defendent.

Additionally the District Court orders the Department of Justice to fine the Defendent $500 and unfine the Plaintiff the same amount

Additionally the District Court orders the Department of Justice to fine the Defendent $500 and unfine the Plaintiff's Lawyer the same amount

The District Court thanks Snowy_Heart, itsBlazeX and zlost for their time.

 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top