- Joined
- May 24, 2026
- Messages
- 30
- Thread Author
- #1
Case Filing
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION
UrbanDispatchMC
Plaintiff
v.
DrippyPVP1234
Defendant
COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:
I. PARTIES
1. UrbanDispatchMC (Buyer)
2. DrippyPVP1234 (Seller)
II. FACTS
1. On October 10th at 7:36 pm Eastern U.S. time, the Defendant posted in the chat an ad, stating "selling a gold drill Send me ur offer"
2. A few seconds later, the Plaintiff responds with an offer for 9.5k.
3. Following negotiations, the Plaintiff and Defendant agree on a price of 9.8k.
4. The Defendant asks that the deal be conducted via chestshop, whereby the Plaintiff and Defendant meet at a private location to finish the deal.
5. To help cope with chestshop taxes, the Defendant agrees to a lower price at 9.5k.
6. The Defendant is given access to create a chestshop on the Plaintiff's property.
7. The Defendant creates a chestshop for an item that looks very similar to what a gold drill would look like in a chestshop. The item is listed at Chest#97R, similar to what gold drills appear as in chestshops, (Chest#8p3), both being "Chest#" followed by a 3 number/letter code.
8. The Plaintiff right clicks the chestshop and purchases the item, paying $9500, under the implication that it is a gold drill, to find out it is a named chest, named "Gold Drill AIASJS". The Defendant never disclosed before payment that the item was anything other than a gold drill.
9. The Defendant flees the scene immediately after the purchase.
III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. Under Redmont's Contract Law, a Contract follows a simple test. All aspects of a contract were established in this transaction.
a) Offer. It is reasonably inferred that the offer the Plaintiff was making was for the Defendant's offering, a gold drill, based on the chat logs following the ad that the Defendant made for the drill.
b) Acceptance. It is clear through the chatlogs that both parties agreed to a set price.
c) Consideration. A golden drill was being offered by the Defendant in exchange for money from the Plaintiff.
d) Intent. Both parties stated their intent to fully enter and complete the deal.
e) Capacity. Capacity was present.
2. Under Redmont's Civil Code, Misrepresentation is defined as a tort in which a person "(a) makes a false statement of fact; and (b) the statement induces another party to enter into a contract; and (c) the other party suffers loss as a result." The Plaintiff suffered a loss worth $9.5k because the Defendant lied that they were actually selling a gold drill.
3. Under Redmont's Civil Code, Misleading Conduct in Trade or Commerce is defined as a tort in which a person "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." As proven in the evidence, the Defendant misled the Plaintiff and deceived them to complete a scam.
4. Under Redmont's Civil Code, Failure to Deliver Goods and Services is defined as a tort in which a person "fails without lawful excuse to deliver goods or services that they have agreed to supply under a valid transaction or contract." In this case, the Defendant refused to deliver the gold drill promised to the Plaintiff.
5. Under Redmont's Civil Code, Conversion is defined as an offense in which a person "(a) wrongfully takes, obtains, or withholds property from an owner; and (b) intends to deprive the owner of the property or to appropriate it to themselves or a third party; and (c) the wrongful taking, obtaining, or withholding is committed by: (ii) obtaining property through deception, lies, or false statements" The Defendant deceived, lied to, and gave false statements to the Plaintiff, in order to scam the Plaintiff out of his $9500. The Defendant listed a renamed chest with a similar chestshop code to pass it off as a real gold drill, and left immediately after payment, showing intent to deceive.
IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. $28,500 as treble damages under Conversion.
2. In the alternative, if treble damages are not awarded, $9,500 in compensatory damages and restitution.
3. Punitive damages to the Court's discretion, because the Defendant’s conduct involved deliberate deception and intent to cause loss.
4. Legal fees at 30% of the total award.
5. A judicial lien, if it is required to recoup the preceding damages.
6. The Plaintiff seeks a single recovery and no duplicate compensation.
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.
p-001 should be attached as a .txt file. If it is not visible, I can add it in later through Pastebin or another source.
DATED: This 10th day of October, 2026.