- Joined
- May 27, 2026
- Messages
- 34
- Thread Author
- #1
Case Filing
Case Filing
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION
Two Guys Realty (TGR)
Plaintiff
v.
MubleMC
Defendant
COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:
The plaintiff is TGR (Two Guys Realty), a realty company. The defendant, MubleMC, sought to purchase a property from TGR- the property i029. After negotiations, an agreed-upon price was come to- $37,000. However, the defendant did not have $37,000. Instead, the defendant and the plaintiff came to the agreement that the plaintiff would loan the defendant $37,000 so he could buy the property. This loan had a down payment of 20% and a monthly interest of 5% over the period of 3 months. The defendant explicitly agreed to the terms of this loan and signed a contract for the purchase of the property. On the date of the first payment, April 13, 2026 the defendant informed the plaintiff that he did not have enough funds to repay the first $11,346.70 owed. The defendant offered to default; however, the plaintiff granted the defendant an extension, with the caveat of an additional 5% penalty should the defendant not pay the amount owed back within a week (April 20).
The defendant did not contact the plaintiff again until May 12, 2026- past the deadline. The defendant informed the plaintiff that he would be defaulting on his loan, as he could not pay back the owed amount. The plaintiff told the defendant that all he needed to do was to transfer back to plot. The defendant did not respond until May 27, when the plaintiff reached out to inquire the status of the plot. The defendant stated that he would transfer the plot come Friday, where he would do it in-game.
As of 6/28/26, the defendant has still not transfered i029 to the plaintiff. He has not paid back the money he owed on his loan. He has not been online at all for the past 30 days.
I. PARTIES
1. Two Guys Realty
2. MubleMC
II. FACTS
1. The defendant took out a loan to purchase a property from TGR. TGR was the creditor of this loan.
2. The defendant purchased i029 from the plaintiff with the money from this loan under a contract.
3. The defendant did not make the payments agreed upon and defaulted on their loan, agreeing to transfer back the property, as this was worth slightly less than the amount owed in the loan (which the plaintiff agreed to).
4. Despite his promise, the defendant did not transfer back the property and has been inactive for over a month.
III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. First, a disclosure. This case uses evidence from the deported player jakkuwu. This should not be grounds for dismissal. While long deported players maintain no legal rights, this case is not being filed on behalf of jakkuwu, nor does the outcome of this case affect jakkuwu in any way. Jakkuwu no longer participates in the dealings of TGR and no longer owns the company. This is strictly a matter of obtaining property entitled to the company TGR that may be beneficial.
2. Contracts are formed and valid provided they meet the criteria for offer, acceptance, consideration, intent, and capacity. Examining each part of a contract, we see that one is present.
a) There was a clear desire from the plaintiff to lend on a contract, and the defendant willingly agreed to the loan and its terms.
b) Both parties accepted this contract.
c) The defendant recieved $37,000 immediately, while the plantiff recieved a down payment and the promise of repayment with 5% interest over 3 months.
d) Both parties had the intent to enter into a contract.
e) Both players had over 6 hours of playtime.
This proves the loan was valid, and that failure to repay this loan therefore constitues breach of contract.
The contract proving the purchase of the house is attached below, and is inarguably a contract (and thus not requring extensive explanation)- explicitly legally formatted as such and containing the criteria, which may be reviewed for confirmation.
3. Breach of Contract is applicable in scenarios where an individual:
(a) fails to perform obligations under a valid and enforceable contract without lawful excuse.
This violation shall not occur where:
(b) the contract is void or voidable; or
(c) performance was rendered impossible by circumstances beyond the party’s control; or
(d) the other party materially breached the contract first; or
(e) the party was induced to enter the contract through misrepresentation or duress.
The defendant failed to perform his obligation of loan repayment for over a month. This contract was not voidable, and performance was not made impossible by circumstances outside of the party's control (if one enters a loan contract, one's finances are objectively expected to be within the party's control). The plaintiff did not breach the contract first, and no duress or misrepresentation was present. This should suffice to prove that the defendant committed a breach of contract.
4. Outrageous conduct is defined as "conduct that demonstrates a substantial departure from acceptable standards of behaviour and reflects a wilful, dishonest, oppressive, reckless, or grossly negligent disregard for the rights, interests, or safety of others." By promising to transfer a property as a method of default on a loan, and then subsequently shunning this agreement, even though the defendant acknowledged they had to default and would transfer the property, the defendant showcases that they have a gross disregard for the business interests of TGR.
IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. Recission of the loan contract, resultant in the transfer of $29.6k (the amount loaned minus the initial down payment, representing a complete nullification of the contract) back to TGR.
a) As the defendant used the money loaned to purchase i029 from TGR, the refunding of the this total would effectively nullify the purchase of the house. The defendant does not hold the $37,000 loaned to them, but holds a property worth exactly that amount, as agreed upon by contract. Since the defendant does not have this $37,000, nor $29,600, instead, the Plaintiff wishes for the property to be returned to their purview- essentially, since the loan contract is being rescinded, the plaintiff wishes for the purchase contract, which was only possible as a direct result of the loan, to also be rescinded. The plaintiff would refund the defendant's down payment.
If the court finds this implausible for any reason, then the Plaintiff wishes for 80% of $37k (the amount loaned, minus the down payment)- $29.6K.
2. $932.48 in punitive damages for outrageous behavior.
3. Any further remedy the court deems just and proper.
List of Evidence/Witnesses
P-001: Logs between a representative of TGR and MubleMC, confirming the loan contract
these are in the wrong order and i cant figure out how to fix it without messing up everything. the proper order should be the top first, then the bottom, then the middle last
P-002: The contract for the purchase of i029
(This cannot be put in a spoiler but is attached as a PDF below.)
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 2nd day of July, 2026
