Lawsuit: Dismissed UrbanDispatchMC v. pentagn

[Cat Oakridge]

Case Filing

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION

UrbanDispatchMC
Plaintiff

v.

pentagn
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF

On June 15, 2026, at around 2:30 am EST, I, UrbanDispatchMC, publicly announced in global
chat: "first to say ME gives me $5000 for 5 diamonds!"
The Defendant, pentagn, responded with "Me," thereby accepting the offer.
Despite attempting to execute the transaction, pentagn refused to comply, constituting a breach of contract.

I. PARTIES

1. UrbanDispatchMC, Plaintiff
2. pentagn, Defendant

II. FACTS

1. On June 15, 2026, at around 2:30 am EST, the Plaintiff publicly broadcast in global chat the following offer: "first to say ME gives me $5000 for 5 diamonds!"

2. The Defendant, pentagn, responded in global chat with "Me," satisfying the condition stipulated in the Plaintiff's offer.

3. The offer constituted a valid contract under the Contracts Act, with performance of the stated condition serving as acceptance.

4. Despite the Plaintiff attempting to perform and deliver the agreed 5 diamonds, the Defendant refused to provide the agreed payment of $5000.

5. The Plaintiff has received no payment, partial or otherwise, from the Defendant, despite attempting to go through with the transaction.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

1. The Plaintiff asserts that a valid contract was formed under Section 4(2) of the Contracts Act, satisfying all required elements:

(a) OFFER: The Plaintiff made a clear and unequivocal public offer specifying the trigger condition and the deal: 5 diamonds for $5000.​

(b) ACCEPTANCE: The Defendant responded with the exact term required by the offer ("Me"), constituting positive and unambiguous acceptance mirroring the terms of the offer, evidenced in Exhibit P-001.​

(c) CONSIDERATION: The Plaintiff offered 5 diamonds for $5000 to the first person to say "me", and the Defendant accepted by performing the required act. Both parties agreed to exchange something of value.​

(d) INTENT: The offer contained a specific offer indicating what was being offered, how much it was being offered for, and how it could be accepted.​

(e) CAPACITY: The Defendant possesses the legal requirement for capacity, with playtime exceeding 6 hours as deemed necessary under Section 14(17) and as evidenced by Exhibit P-003.
​

2. The Defendant's refusal to execute the transaction (evidenced by Exhibit P-004) constitutes a breach of contract under Section 7 of the Contracts Act.

3. The Defendant's failure to perform further violates the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing under Section 12 of the Contracts Act.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:

1. $5000 in exchange for 5 diamonds, as originally agreed.

2. Legal fees deemed appropriate by the Court.

EVIDENCE:

Spoiler: Exhibit P-001, Contract Agreement

Spoiler: Exhibit P-002, Confirmation Implication

Spoiler: Exhibit P-003, Proof of Playtime/Capacity

Spoiler: Exhibit P-004, Attempt to Complete Transaction

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 15th day of June, 2026.

 

[Matthew100x]

This case is dismissed as frivolous. There is no legitimate contract here as the "offer" isn't actually offering anything. Furthermore, the Defendant very clearly did not have intent to enter into this contract. Even more disturbing is that diamonds are worth around $4.25 each. (see https://economy.democracycraft.net/chestshop/items/Diamond). The fact that you think anyone would accept five diamonds for $5,000 when the true value for those items is around $20 is crazy to me. What is more ludicrous is that you think a Court would enforce this.

I am charging you with one count of filing a Frivolous Court Case and sentencing you a statutorily mandatory 100 penalty units. (See Criminal Code Act, Part III, § 4, Act of Congress - Criminal Code Act). The Court does not have time to be dealing with these joke suits when there are cases that haven't been heard yet because of the current backlog.

 

[Muggy21]

This case is dismissed as frivolous. There is no legitimate contract here as the "offer" isn't actually offering anything. Furthermore, the Defendant very clearly did not have intent to enter into this contract. Even more disturbing is that diamonds are worth around $4.25 each. (see https://economy.democracycraft.net/chestshop/items/Diamond). The fact that you think anyone would accept five diamonds for $5,000 when the true value for those items is around $20 is crazy to me. What is more ludicrous is that you think a Court would enforce this.

I am charging you with one count of filing a Frivolous Court Case and sentencing you a statutorily mandatory 100 penalty units. (See Criminal Code Act, Part III, § 4, Act of Congress - Criminal Code Act). The Court does not have time to be dealing with these joke suits when there are cases that haven't been heard yet because of the current backlog.

M

Appeal: Denied Post in thread 'Appeal in re:UrbanDispatchMC, Frivolous Court Case [2026] FCR 51'

Jun 15, 2026

Court Order

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Memorandum, Decision & Order - In re: UrbanDispatchMC, Frivolous Court Case [2026] FCR 51


SUMMARY OF APPEAL
The Appellant filed suit to enforce a global-chat line, "first to say ME gives me $5000 for 5 diamonds!", after the Defendant replied "Me." The presiding judicial officer dismissed the suit as frivolous and charged one count of Frivolous Court Case at 100 penalty units. The Appellant appeals on two grounds: that no opportunity to respond was given, and that citing statute and attaching exhibits establishes good...

• Muggy21

This order was subject to an appeal before the Federal Court. In [2026] FCR 51, the Federal Court affirms this action.