Lawsuit: Pending Vaishhh v. CrossChris12 [2025] DCR 70

[guiltypleasurez]

​

Case Filing

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

CIVIL ACTION

Vaishhh
Plaintiff

v.

CrossChris12
Defendant

COMPLAINT

The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

On the 28th of August, 2025, the Defendant, CrossChris12, entered into a legally binding contract with the Plaintiff to borrow a Gold Drill (hereinafter "the machine"). The terms of this contract, clearly communicated in the in-game chat (P-01 & 02), stipulated that the Defendant would use the machine for a maximum of two days.

The Defendant took possession of the machine but has failed to return it, in clear violation of the agreed-upon two-day limit. This constitutes a material breach of the contract. As a direct result of the Defendant's failure to return the property, the Plaintiff has been unable to conduct their own mining operations. The use of this machine generates approximately $2,000 per week for the Plaintiff (P-003), and its absence has therefore caused a significant and ongoing loss of profit.

The Plaintiff acknowledges the Defendant was a new player, having just joined the server on the 28th of August and possessing only over 2 hours of playtime at the time the agreement was made. While this may bring the Defendant’s capacity to contract into question under §4(2)(e) of the Contracts Act, it does not absolve the Defendant of the responsibility to return property they do not own. Precedent set in (Dimitre977 v. kesballo FCR 6) and (Pressler, Felt & Warshaw, LLP v. .Jack77l8568 DCR 34) establishes that even when a contract is voided due to a new player's lack of capacity, the court orders the return of the property or principal amount.

Furthermore, this case is fundamentally different from the precedent in Dimitre977. In that case, the court voided a contract with a new player on the basis that its terms were predatory and would be financially ruinous to a new player. Here, the contract was a simple loan offered for free as an act of good faith to help a new player. The Defendant's failure to return the machine is not a misunderstanding of complex or predatory terms, but a simple failure to return borrowed property, unjustly enriching the Defendant at the direct expense of the Plaintiff.

I. PARTIES

1. Vaishhh - Plaintiff
2. CrossChris12 - Defendant

II. FACTS

1. CrossChris12 entered into a loan contract with Vaishhh for a mining machine (P-001, P-002).
2. The contract explicitly limited the borrowing period to a maximum of two days (P-001, P-002).
3. CrossChris12 took possession of the machine on or around August 28, 2025.
4. CrossChris12 has failed to return the machine to Vaishhh since the agreed-upon return date of August 30, 2025.
5. The Plaintiff earns approximately $2,000 per week from the operation of the machine (P-003).
6. As a direct result of the Defendant's breach, the Plaintiff has been unable to conduct their mining operations, resulting in a significant and quantifiable loss of profit.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

1. Breach of Contract: By failing to return the mining machine, the Defendant, breached a valid contract, causing direct financial harm to the Plaintiff in the form of lost property and lost profits.
2. Unjust Enrichment: In the event that the contract is found void, the Defendant has still been unjustly enriched by retaining the Plaintiff's property without a legal basis, thereby depriving the Plaintiff of its use and the income derived from it.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:

1. Specific Performance: The immediate return of the mining machine to the Plaintiff in the same condition it was loaned out.
2. Compensatory Damages for Lost Profits: The Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages for the profits lost due to the inability to conduct mining operations. This is to be calculated at a rate of $2000 a week (P-003) starting from 31st of August, currently amounting to $7,000 and continuing to accrue.
3. Compensatory Damages for Property: In the event the machine cannot be returned or is returned damaged, the Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages in the amount of $15,000 to cover the cost of a replacement (P-004). This is in addition to the damages for lost profits.
4. Punitive Damages: The Plaintiff seeks $5,000 in punitive damages for the Defendant's bad-faith conduct and willful disregard for the contract's terms and the subsequent financial harm caused to the Plaintiff.
5. Legal Fees: The Plaintiff seeks compensation for legal fees to ObsidianLegal LLC corresponding to 30% of damages sought.

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 26th day of September 2025

P-001

Spoiler

P-002

Spoiler

P-003

Spoiler

P-004

Spoiler

Proof of representation

Spoiler

 

[dearev]

Writ of Summons

@CrossChris12, is required to appear before the district Court in the case of Vaishhh v. CrossChris12 [2025] DCR 70

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.