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

[Snowy_Heart]

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF REDMONT CIVIL ACTION

Utilitysoup1407 (Lovely Law Firm Representing)
Plaintiff


v.


Kitje_katje_nl
defendant


COMPLAINT:
The plaintiff complains against the defendant as follows:
On August 22, 2023 at 10:43PM, the Plaintiff started an auction for a shulker with 1728 bone blocks. The starting bid was $450, and the bid increment was $100. The time frame of the auction was for twenty four hours. On august 23, 2023 at 9:32pm Kitje_katje_nl made a bid for $1500 dollars. No other bids above that amount were made before the time limit expired. The plaintiff attempted to deliver the Shulker box and retrieve payment as agreed upon on august 24, 2023 but Kitje_katje_nl was not available. Many attempts were made to contact Kitje_katje_nl to retrieve the payment and deliver the goods, however Kitje_katje_nl refused to reply.


I. PARTIES
1. Utilitysoup1407
2. Kitje_katje_nl


II. Facts
1. The auction started August 22 2023, by Utilitysoup1407. The auction would end 24 hours after the original post.
2. The agreed upon product of the auction was a shulker box containing 1728 bone blocks.
3. On august 24th Kitje_katje_nl bid $1,500 on the shulker .
4. No other bids were made during the 24 hour period.
5. Multiple attempts were made to deliver the product and collect the payment. 6. No payment has been made by Kitje_katje_nl.


III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. The plaintiffs' auction has every requirement of a binding contract.
2. The incitation of the auction was an unequivocal statement of terms, which according to section 6 of the CLF makes it qualify for an offer.
3. At any point during the 24-hour period Kitje_katje_nl could have not offered or rescinded their offer to terminate the contract.
4. By creating the bid Kitje_katje_nl accepted the offers terms.
5. The property is the offer, and the money (bid) is the consideration.
6. A reasonable person in this situation would consider an auction intention to enter a legal relation. If a bidder won a reasonable person would expect the auctioneer to uphold their promise, and deliver on it. Therefore, it would be expected of the bidder to uphold there promise and pay for the goods or services the bid for.
7. The auction meets all standards of the definition of a contract, therefore, for all intents and purposes should be treated as such.
8. Kitje_katje_nl breached that contract by refusing to pay the plaintiff.


IV. PRAYERS FOR RELIEF
1. Kitje_katje_nl to pay $1500 (One Thousand Five Hundred Dollars) for the original agreed upon bid.
2. Kitje_katje_nl to pay $1000 ( One Thousand Dollars) for opportunity costs and being held liable for taxes on the property which should have been sold already.
3. Kitje_katje_nl to pay $ $1500 (One Thousand Five Hundred Dollars) for loss of enjoyment of redmont for not being able to spend the original $1500.
4. Kitje_katje_nl to pay $1000 ( One Thousand Dollars) for legal fees incurred by the plaintiff. Dated:

This 11th day of September 2023

Evidence:
The original auction
Discord - A New Way to Chat with Friends & Communities

The plaintiffs Offer:

The Defendents Bid:

The defendant winning:

The plaintiff reaching out to the defendant:

DemocracyCrafts Bid Policy

Lawyer Agreement:

 

[Matthew100x]

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
WRIT OF SUMMONS

The defendant is required to appear before the court in the case of the Utilitysoup1407 v. Kitje_katje_nl. Failure to appear within 48 hours of this summons will result in a default judgment in favour 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.​

 

[Matthew100x]

This is going to be a longer court opinion because this court needs to clarify some aspects of the public defender law.

This Court is aware of the recently filed Nacholebraa v. Commonwealth of Redmont that has not yet been docketed with the Federal Court. The issue on the table is the Public Defender Program. This is an issue that is brought up in Lawsuit: Dismissed - The Commonwealth of Redmont v. d3froggy [2023] FCR 60, Lawsuit: In Session - bigpappa140 v. .BelatedDragon35 [2023] FCR 63, Lawsuit: In Session - Commonwealth v. .LodgedRock27703 [2023] DCR 17, and Lawsuit: Pending - Commonwealth of Redmont v. urbanbeau [2023] DCR 24. The focus of the Public Defender Program is to give players legal representation when they are unable to defend themselves. The decision whether or not a player gets a Public Defender has been through Judicial Prerogative (the presiding judge deciding) and the guidelines laid out in the now rescinded Modern Legal Board Act and Even Moderner Legal Boards Act (see Rescinded - Modern Legal Board Act, Repealed - Public Defender Utilization Act, Repealed - Even Moderner Legal Board Act, and Act of Congress - Super Modern Legal Board Act). Despite the previous guidelines being repealed, the Judiciary still looks towards them as a way of determining whether or not a player needs a Public Defender Program. This is due to fact the that new guidelines have not been established.

Since the repeal of the previous law, the new programme for handling the Public Defender Program has been footballed to the courts (see Act of Congress - Save The Public Defender Program Act), yet the Courts have not fully established the guidelines for assigning Public Defenders. It instead has created the PDD (Public Defender Director) position and established the PD (Public Defender) position for lawyers to take on cases on the behalf of clients.

Given that these positions are created by the courts, has the powers to make guidelines been divested to the PDD or does it lie with the Chief Justice / Supreme Court? These questions are out of the scope of this court. Instead, it turns to establish what previous cases have brought up. Which is that a presiding judge may assign a PD if they qualify for the requirements listed under the Public Defender Utilization act and for extenuating circumstances granted by the judge (such as not being of age to represent oneself).

Thus the conditions that would give rise for a public defender is as follows:

The case reverts to a default judgment.
Since the defendant did not respond, this would result in a default judgment.

The defendant does not have a forums account.
The defendant does have a forums account.

The defendant is legally inactive (less than 6 hours of playtime per month).
The defendant currently has 11 minutes of playtime.

Since the defendant does meet two requirements out of the three, I will be requesting the PDD @Bibsfi4a to please assign a Public Defender to this case. Please have a PD assigned to this case and respond with an answer within 72 hours.

This ruling is in a district court case and should not be seen as anything other then persuasive on any other case.. This ruling is subject to changes in the programme’s guidelines at the discretion of the Judiciary and how it sees fit to handle the Public Defender Program.

 

[Snowy_Heart]

This is going to be a longer court opinion because this court needs to clarify some aspects of the public defender law.

This Court is aware of the recently filed Nacholebraa v. Commonwealth of Redmont that has not yet been docketed with the Federal Court. The issue on the table is the Public Defender Program. This is an issue that is brought up in Lawsuit: Dismissed - The Commonwealth of Redmont v. d3froggy [2023] FCR 60, Lawsuit: In Session - bigpappa140 v. .BelatedDragon35 [2023] FCR 63, Lawsuit: In Session - Commonwealth v. .LodgedRock27703 [2023] DCR 17, and Lawsuit: Pending - Commonwealth of Redmont v. urbanbeau [2023] DCR 24. The focus of the Public Defender Program is to give players legal representation when they are unable to defend themselves. The decision whether or not a player gets a Public Defender has been through Judicial Prerogative (the presiding judge deciding) and the guidelines laid out in the now rescinded Modern Legal Board Act and Even Moderner Legal Boards Act (see Rescinded - Modern Legal Board Act, Repealed - Public Defender Utilization Act, Repealed - Even Moderner Legal Board Act, and Act of Congress - Super Modern Legal Board Act). Despite the previous guidelines being repealed, the Judiciary still looks towards them as a way of determining whether or not a player needs a Public Defender Program. This is due to fact the that new guidelines have not been established.

Since the repeal of the previous law, the new programme for handling the Public Defender Program has been footballed to the courts (see Act of Congress - Save The Public Defender Program Act), yet the Courts have not fully established the guidelines for assigning Public Defenders. It instead has created the PDD (Public Defender Director) position and established the PD (Public Defender) position for lawyers to take on cases on the behalf of clients.

Given that these positions are created by the courts, has the powers to make guidelines been divested to the PDD or does it lie with the Chief Justice / Supreme Court? These questions are out of the scope of this court. Instead, it turns to establish what previous cases have brought up. Which is that a presiding judge may assign a PD if they qualify for the requirements listed under the Public Defender Utilization act and for extenuating circumstances granted by the judge (such as not being of age to represent oneself).

Thus the conditions that would give rise for a public defender is as follows:

The case reverts to a default judgment.
Since the defendant did not respond, this would result in a default judgment.

The defendant does not have a forums account.
The defendant does have a forums account.

The defendant is legally inactive (less than 6 hours of playtime per month).
The defendant currently has 11 minutes of playtime.

Since the defendant does meet two requirements out of the three, I will be requesting the PDD @Bibsfi4a to please assign a Public Defender to this case. Please have a PD assigned to this case and respond with an answer within 72 hours.

This ruling is in a district court case and should not be seen as anything other then persuasive on any other case.. This ruling is subject to changes in the programme’s guidelines at the discretion of the Judiciary and how it sees fit to handle the Public Defender Program.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO RECONSIDER
Your honor,
If I may, the defendant has had ample time to be notified of this case, and respond to the writ of summons appropriately. Just as the defendant has had ample time to respond to request of fulfilling their requirements of the auction as identified above. The defendant as failed to do both. As such I request, on the behalf of the plantiff, that the original time frame be used, the dismissal of Public Defender be invoked, and the continuation to default judgment.
Thank you your honor.

 

[kitje_katje_nl]

Your honor
I know i dont allowed to talk now i know but i dont want a public defender and i forgot about this it whas better to dm me on discord about this... because now i just see this as i whas busy in reallife. i whas still happy to still pay / buy it from her. and i will get my own defender if that is good.

thank you your honor...

 

[Bibsfi4a]

Your honor, shall I still appoint a Public Defender after the request of the defendant and the motion?

 

[Matthew100x]

Your honor
I know i dont allowed to talk now i know but i dont want a public defender and i forgot about this it whas better to dm me on discord about this... because now i just see this as i whas busy in reallife. i whas still happy to still pay / buy it from her. and i will get my own defender if that is good.

thank you your honor...

Please inform the court whether you want to get your own lawyer or complete your transaction. Thank you @kitje_katje_nl.

 

[Matthew100x]

Your honor, shall I still appoint a Public Defender after the request of the defendant and the motion?

You are relieved of this duty, the defendant opted out of a public defender. Thank you for your quick response.

 

[Snowy_Heart]

Please inform the court whether you want to get your own lawyer or complete your transaction. Thank

Please inform the court whether you want to get your own lawyer or complete your transaction. Thank you @kitje_katje_nl.

Your honor the plantiff and counsel would like to request a time limit be placed on the defendent to proceed with the trial on the basis that, the defendent did not respond within 48 hours of the writ, and took 8 days to respond to the case.

Every day that our client is refused payment owed, is another day they cannot capitlize on the investment, and misses out on oppertunity costs that the investment could procure.

We would also like to request clarification on your term, "or complete the transaction" as now the prayers of relief include the original transaction, legal fees, opportunity costs and loss of enjoyment of redmont.

To declare them to pay only the first prayer would be upon itself a verdict, and considering no trial has taken place, default judgement was revoked, and summary judgment has not been granted, a virdict at this point, would be a breach of procedure.

Thank you, your honor.

 

[Snowy_Heart]

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Your Honor,
if I may,

it has been 2 weeks since your directive for the defendent to find a lawyer had been ordered.

It had been five days after the intial writ of summons before the defendent had responded to the court.

It has been a total of 23 days since this case has been filed.

The defendent has shown no respect for the courts time, nor the plaintiffs right to a speedy trail.

As such the plaintiff counsel would like to motion for summary judgement.

Thank you,
Your Honor.

 

[kitje_katje_nl]

Your honor.
as i failed to get a lawyer im fine with getting a public defender if its still possible

thank you

 

[Snowy_Heart]

Your Honor,
The platiff requests to adjust prayer number 2 to a total of $2500 (from $1000) on the basis of:

1. The defendent has repeatedly delayed the case through their denial of a public defender after the defender was called which in itself was a breach of procedure.

2. By not finding a lawyer and requesting a public defender after they refused a public defender only delayed the trail further and was another breach of procedure.

3. These delays only increase the total opertunity costs to our client has to endure without their payment. We belive this new amount for prayer 2 reflects more accuratly the updated cost.

 

[Matthew100x]

Verdict

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
VERDICT
Utilitysoup1407 v. Kitje_katje_nl [2023] DCR 26

I. PLAINTIFF'S POSITION
1. Defendant entered into a binding contract with the plaintiff by bidding on the auction.
2. Defendant failed to remit payment for auction and failed to complete the transaction.
3. Defendant is in breach of their contract and harmed the plaintiff.
4. The Plaintiff is to be awarded the enforcement of their contract plus: compensatory damages for harm caused by taxes, Consequential Damages Loss of Enjoyment in Redmont for defendant's failure to complete transaction, and legal fees.

II. DEFENDANT'S POSITION
1. The Defendant failed to adequately appear before the District Court.

III. COURT OPINION
This is Dicta, please do not cite this paragraph in any future proceeding. Between the impeachment trial for the presiding judge and awaiting the defendant's counsel, this court acknowledges that there was a lag in time for the resolution of the case. The Court apologizes for the lack of speed in this case.

1. Because defendant opted out of a public defender, they are not entitled to a default judgment defense for failure to defend themselves in court.
2. An auction does constitute a legally binding contract between two parties. When one wins an auction they are legally required to purchase the object, unless the contract is voided by misrepresentation, as with any other contract. (Citing Lawsuit: Adjourned - Creepy505 V. d3froggy [2023] DCR 15)
3. In this case, the Defendant failed to uphold the contract. (Citing Lawsuit: Adjourned - Creepy505 V. d3froggy [2023] DCR 15)
4. The Court will uphold the winning bid. (Citing Lawsuit: Adjourned - Creepy505 V. d3froggy [2023] DCR 15)
5. Due to the plaintiff not showing proof of harm from taxes on property as well as the court's lack of knowledge on an item or auction tax, the court denies compensatory damages.
6. Due to a lack of evidence proving how the failure to complete transaction caused consequential damages of Loss of enjoyment of Redmont, the Court will be granting a modified prayer for relief.
7. Per the Legal Damages Act, the court will be capping Legal Fees at 20% of the awards given to the plaintiff.

IV. VERDICT
The District Court hereby rules in favor of the Plaintiff, and grants a modified Prayer for Relief.

The District Court orders the Department of Justice to fine the Defendant $1,500 dollars and unfine the plaintiff that same amount. When the amount is fully transferred to the plaintiff, The plaintiff is then ordered to complete the agreed upon transaction.

The District Court additionally orders the Department of Justice to fine the defendant $500 dollars in Consequential Damages and unfine the plaintiff that same amount.

The District Court additionally orders the Department of Justice to fine the Defendant $400 dollars in Legal Fees and unfine the plaintiff's lawyer in that same amount.

The District Court thanks all involved.