Lawsuit: Adjourned xerxesmc v. ShinHeYing [2021] FCR 69

[Canxx01]

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


xerxesmc (Distinctive Partners at Law - Canxx01 Representing)
Plaintiff

v.

ShinHeYing
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF

In pursuant to the R&L 10.0 C. § 10.1 "Fraud" which states "A dishonest or illegal scheme of obtaining something of value.", the Plaintiff sues the Defendant for a misleading title and screenshot in a DC Bid auction, therefore a dishonest scheme of obtaining something of value, leading to 20,000$ of losses bid on the Auction item, and 4971$ lost in company expenses for the opening of the store in the misleading item of auction.

I. PARTIES
1. xerxesmc (Canxx01 Representing) - Plaintiff
2. ShinHeYing - Defendant

II. FACTS
1. The Defendant opened an auction under Category "Auctions - S" Channel #shinheying in the DC Bid Discord Server.
2. The item up for bid was, to quote the Defendant: "Auctioning the renting lease of the Willow Gas Station!"
3. The Plaintiff and others have bid on the auction, with ChAkselsn and the Plaintiff giving the last bids.
4. The auction ended with the Plaintiff bidding the final amount of 20,000$.
5. The Plaintiff has bought 8 stacks of gas in order to stockpile for the opening of the store, which has lead to 4096$ in company expenses.
6. The Plaintiff made 15 Costco banners for the store, valuing at 675$ in total.
7. The Plaintiff, after winning the auction, could not place signs in order to set up chestshops, and was informed that they had only won a 3x3 area instead of the Gas Station, which the Defendant had said was up for bid in the DC Bid channel under their name.
8. The Plaintiff was given advice to pursue litigation on the matter by staff in the ticket they had created to handle the issue, which is why the Plaintiff has filed this case.
9. The Plaintiff has spent 200$ in legal fees filing a lawsuit which was necessitated by the fact that a misleading auction was created in DC Bid by the Defendant.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. R&L 10.0 C. § 10.1 "Fraud" which states:

10.1 - Fraud
A dishonest or illegal scheme of obtaining something of value.
First Offence: 10 Minutes Jail + $200 fine + Repossession of items/monies.
Second Offence: 20 Minutes Jail + $250 fine + Repossession of items/monies.
Third Offence and after: 60 minutes jail + $300 fine + Repossession of items/monies.
https://democracycraft.net/threads/jurisdiction-act.1488/

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. Repossession of the 20,000$ by the Plaintiff for spending them on a misleading auction;
2. Monetary payment of 4771$ paid by the Defendant to the Plaintiff, to cover for company expenses of Costco's investment on the misleading auction item;
3. 200$ in legal fees due to the fact that the Plaintiff had to pursue litigation because an auction item that the Plaintiff bid on was not actually what the Defendant claimed it was.

(Attach evidence and a list of witnesses at the bottom if applicable)

Spoiler: Proof of the misleading Auction

Quoted line of "Renting lease of the Willow Gas Station", and the photograph of the entire Gas Station are of misleading nature to the bidders that they were bidding on the entire Gas Station.

Spoiler: What the Plaintiff actually got

The item won by the Plaintiff was not even visible in the Auction announcement picture, proving the misleading nature of it.

Spoiler: Proof that the Plaintiff bid 20,000$ and won the Auction

Spoiler: Proof of Attorney Employment by the Plaintiff

Spoiler: Proof that the Plaintiff has contacted staff prior to pursuing litigation

Spoiler: Witness List

ChAkselsen - Bidder on the Auction

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 12th day of June 2021

 

[Matthew100x]

IN THE COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
WRIT OF SUMMONS

The defendant is required to appear before the court in the case of xerxesmc (Canxx01 - Distinctive Partners at Law Representing) v. ShinHeYing. 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.

Signed,
Matthew00x
I Judge I

​

​

 

[ShinHeYing]

IN THE COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT


xerxesmc (Distinctive Partners at Law - Canxx01 Representing)
Plaintiff

v.

ShinHeYing (ShinHeYing Representing)
Defendant

Case no: 06- 2021- 12

I ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
The defendant has confirmed they sold the renting lease of the region "willowgas" to Xerxesmc.
The defendant acknowledges the misunderstanding but no fraud was committed.
The plaintiff had legally auctioned for the renting lease and won the auction.
The defendant did not hide any information during and after the auction.

II DEFENCES
1. The defendant started this auction fairly and followed through with the Auctioneer's Rules stated in the DC Bids Discord. There was no information hidden. The location of the rent space being auctioned was specified and the region "willowgas" is considered a gas station.

2.
R&L 10.0 C. § 10.1 "Fraud" which states:
10.1 - Fraud
A dishonest or illegal scheme of obtaining something of value.
First Offence: 10 Minutes Jail + $200 fine + Repossession of items/monies.
Second Offence: 20 Minutes Jail + $250 fine + Repossession of items/monies.
Third Offence and after: 60 minutes jail + $300 fine + Repossession of items/monies.
https://democracycraft.net/threads/jurisdiction-act.1488/

The process of transferring and the auction of region "willowgas" was neither dishonest nor illegal obtainment of the plot. The location was known publicly. The plaintiff is also a long-time player in the server who knows where the region being auctioned is. It would be dishonest if the defendant had hidden the location of the region, but the defendant had given a solid picture defining the location of the Willow Gas Station. The plaintiff could've also asked in the auction channel or even visit the region itself. However, the plaintiff chose not to do so. The picture provided had explicitly stated the location but had no implications of the gas station as a whole thing. Since the region was also coincidently named "willowgas" even the auctioneer can get confused as it was part of the gas station.

3.
Referring to "Auction-S channel #ShinHeYing in DC Bids Discord Server, you can see the history of the auction and the prices that rose. The auction had originally started at 1,000$. The plaintiff had increase 4,000$ more than the last prominent bidder. The previous bid was 16,000$. DC Bidder rules state if the plaintiff could not pay, then assets would be seized. The plaintiff had paid the price. However, the plaintiff requested litigation directly after the transfer of the region "willowgas", this will cause the defendant 20,000$ and the unreasonably extra 4,971$ lost because of the plaintiff's misjudgment. The defendant will be charged 24,971$ for a rent region of 50$ per 14 days because of Plaintiff's misunderstanding when it was Plaintiff who drove up the price to a point that no one can bid.

4.
Regarding Plaintiff's 5th fact. The average cost of fuel was 6$. The highest was 7$ each. The plaintiff claims he brought 8 stacks of fuel for 4096$, which would be 8$ per fuel. The plaintiff is claiming an extra 512$ cost.

Regarding Plaintiff's 6th fact. The plaintiff made 15 Costco banners at 675$ for evaluation. That is 45$ per banner. The plaintiff operates Tesco and provides the materials himself at a lower cost. 45$ is way too high for wool, sticks, and simple red and white dye.

In this regard, the plaintiff is exaggerating their expenses in court for a higher company expense payout.

5. Lastly, the defendant also understands what caused this misunderstanding but wished that Plaintiff had notified her any time earlier before the bid ended. The defendant was also under the false implication that the Willow gas station included both parts, it is confusing why the mayor decided to split a gas station into two parts. The defendant has not worked with any gas stations before so this issue was a first.

6. The defendant also recommends a conversation between the plaintiff and the current renter of the outside region of the Willow gas station because she noticed a few moments before, the chests of the company "EmeraldCo" had run completely out of stock. Unless of course, it was the plaintiff who brought out the fuel stock that EmeraldCo had, please clarify that in Plaintiff's next response.

7. If the plaintiff wants any percentage refunded from the original over the misunderstanding. Both the defendant and the plaintiff will need to reach a negotiation. However, if it is entire litigation, then the bid would be turned to the next highest bidder, Chakselsen according to Bidding Rules.

8. Lastly, based on Plaintiff's provided evidence in the server ticket. Westray recommended a "percentage of the refund" if possible. Not a complete refund and more coverage of expenses.
Also, Chakselsen, one of the bidders on the auction had acknowledged that he understood what the auction meant by his words, " I mean if every gas station was set up that way... wouldn't that be expected for?" and " Yeah but there may have been a private deal with the mayor that made the rent region seem larger." If that is the issue, we may need to bring the Mayor of Willow into this case, since the defendant wasn't sure completely on what diameter was the rent region as they had rented the plot and auctioned it believing it included the whole thing and there was no public rent sign in sight for the outer region of the gas station.

Your honor, this concludes my answer to the complaint.

(Attach evidence and a list of witnesses at the bottom if applicable)

Spoiler: Evidence 1 ( Bidder Rules.

Spoiler: Auctioneer Rules

Spoiler: The Bidding Process

Spoiler: Witnesses

ChAkselsen- Bidder
Bewoz- Bidder

 

[Canxx01]

Objection Your Honor,

The Plaintiff will now object to each objectionable clauses respectively:

1. The defendant started this auction fairly and followed through with the Auctioneer's Rules stated in the DC Bids Discord. There was no information hidden. The location of the rent space being auctioned was specified and the region "willowgas" is considered a gas station.

The given photograph of the rented space was misleading as it did not even include the space being auctioned in the first place. The title, "Willow Gas Station" used by the Defendant did not clarify that the auctioned plot was not the gas station itself but a small room inside it. Not only that, the region "willowgas" was not specified in the auction either.

2.
R&L 10.0 C. § 10.1 "Fraud" which states:
10.1 - Fraud
A dishonest or illegal scheme of obtaining something of value.
First Offence: 10 Minutes Jail + $200 fine + Repossession of items/monies.
Second Offence: 20 Minutes Jail + $250 fine + Repossession of items/monies.
Third Offence and after: 60 minutes jail + $300 fine + Repossession of items/monies.
https://democracycraft.net/threads/jurisdiction-act.1488/

The process of transferring and the auction of region "willowgas" was neither dishonest nor illegal obtainment of the plot. The location was known publicly. The plaintiff is also a long-time player in the server who knows where the region being auctioned is. It would be dishonest if the defendant had hidden the location of the region, but the defendant had given a solid picture defining the location of the Willow Gas Station. The plaintiff could've also asked in the auction channel or even visit the region itself. However, the plaintiff chose not to do so. The picture provided had explicitly stated the location but had no implications of the gas station as a whole thing. Since the region was also coincidently named "willowgas" even the auctioneer can get confused as it was part of the gas station.

The Plaintiff argued that the auction in itself was dishonest, not the methodology behind the transferring of the item. The fact is, that the Defendant cannot speak to what the Plaintiff knows about a given region.

the defendant had given a solid picture defining the location of the Willow Gas Station.

A solid picture of the Willow Gas Station that did not include the plot being auctioned, which is why the auction was dishonest.

The plaintiff could've also asked in the auction channel or even visit the region itself. However, the plaintiff chose not to do so.

The Plaintiff had no obligation to, as it is the auctioneers' responsibility to clarify what they are actually auctioning.

The fact that the picture given, and the title given in the auction does not correlate with the auction item proves that the auction in itself was dishonest, and since it granted the Defendant something of value, fitting of the definition of Fraud as laid out in the Rules & Laws of the server.

3.
Referring to "Auction-S channel #ShinHeYing in DC Bids Discord Server, you can see the history of the auction and the prices that rose. The auction had originally started at 1,000$. The plaintiff had increase 4,000$ more than the last prominent bidder. The previous bid was 16,000$. DC Bidder rules state if the plaintiff could not pay, then assets would be seized. The plaintiff had paid the price. However, the plaintiff requested litigation directly after the transfer of the region "willowgas", this will cause the defendant 20,000$ and the unreasonably extra 4,971$ lost because of the plaintiff's misjudgment. The defendant will be charged 24,971$ for a rent region of 50$ per 14 days because of Plaintiff's misunderstanding when it was Plaintiff who drove up the price to a point that no one can bid.

The Plaintiff is merely asking for the return of the 20,000$ and 4,971$ in charges, not 24,971$ in charges as the Defendant has pointed out. The Plaintiff believes that the 4,971$ in damages are the most minimum amount of damages that they could ask for, as it only accounted for company expenses due to the Fraud, and if the Plaintiff were to expand charges upon to emotional damages, cost of planning time spent by the Plaintiff etc. then the damages would be insurmountable by the Defendant. To resolve this issue on a timely manner and allow for the Defendant to make whole on the total money spent by the Plaintiff, we have chosen 4,971$ as damages.

4.
Regarding Plaintiff's 5th fact. The average cost of fuel was 6$. The highest was 7$ each. The plaintiff claims he brought 8 stacks of fuel for 4096$, which would be 8$ per fuel. The plaintiff is claiming an extra 512$ cost.

Regarding Plaintiff's 6th fact. The plaintiff made 15 Costco banners at 675$ for evaluation. That is 45$ per banner. The plaintiff operates Tesco and provides the materials himself at a lower cost. 45$ is way too high for wool, sticks, and simple red and white dye.

In this regard, the plaintiff is exaggerating their expenses in court for a higher company expense payout.

The Plaintiff, through the course of the trial, will explain the fuel prices in full detail, with testimony gathered from a staff member if necessary.

As for the evaluated cost of the Costco banners, as they are protected with intellectual property, the Plaintiff has chosen the 45$ per banner value for the store prices of Costco, not the production of it.

As such there were no exaggaration made on the company expenses. Rather my client was charging 10$ per and is now actually undercharging for 8$ per, as provided in the following:

 

[ShinHeYing]

Objection Your Honor,

The defendant will now answer to the plaintiff's response to the clauses respectively:

1.
The defendant had addressed that the region "willowgas" is a part of the Willow Gas station. No dishonestly can be claimed here. However, it is true that the way the auction was presented was misleading. Canxx01

A solid picture of the Willow Gas Station that did not include the plot being auctioned, which is why the auction was dishonest.

However the Willow Gas Station indeed included the plot. The pointed-out region suffices more to point the area of the region being auctioned even if it is from a different angle.
In response to the plaintiff's statement, " The fact that the picture is given, and the title given in the auction does not correlate with the auction item proves that the auction in itself was dishonest and since it granted the Defendant something of value, fitting of the definition of Fraud as laid out in the Rules & Laws of the server.". The picture and the title indicated the location of the region being auctioned. There is no public sign for the outer region of the gas station. However, if the plaintiff had bothered to check the rent sign on which the defendant's name was publicly shown on. The plaintiff should see the rent sign and the region. According to DC Auction rules, Only an image must be provided. This image suffices enough to describe the location of the plot being auctioned. The plaintiff should've checked the region before bidding for it like every other responsible bidder. The defendant had clarified the location of the region being auctioned, it is the plaintiff's responsibility as a bidder to check the item being auctioned.

2. If the litigation is approved, then the defendant will lose 20,000$ in business. There's also no guarantee that the defendant's second-highest bidder will pay the price for the rent lease of the region. However, it has already been confirmed that the second witness, ChAkselsen understood the auction and the location, as proven in Plaintiff's evidence of the staff ticket made. It seems only the plaintiff had the misunderstanding of not checking the region being auctioned. There may also be an issue with the government, not including a public rent sign for the outer region which resulted in both parties believing that there's only one rent sign for one region. If the plaintiff wants to expand costs onto emotional damages and time planning, both parties would've had insurmountable costs. The defendant only recently had time to spend on the server compared to the plaintiff. The time for the auction and the time to arrange the transfer of the auction had to depend on the plaintiff, even if the plaintiff needed to delay such a time.

3. The data that the defendant used to evaluate the price of fuel was market price. Many gas companies like EmeraldCo and Mooshroom had previously sold fuel at 7$ per fuel. It is unreasonable to assume the value of fuel based on a biased company's prices. So, it is not undercharging but rather overcharging. I can call witnesses since the staff that removed the signs should've seen the price that EmeraldCo was selling fuel at Willow Gas Station. EmerladCo also sells fuel at Oakridge town. Furthermore, we may ask the DEC to prove if the price of fuel is really as stated. The defendant places trust that the DEC is an unbiased party in this case.

 

[Matthew100x]

I’m going to request that the involved parties refrain from posting more objections. Please give this court some time to read through the submissions. We will reconvene after I have read through everything for rebuttal arguments.

 

[Matthew100x]

I have read over all of the statements made thus far in this courtroom.

Most of the objections here are additional arguments, however, there are a few that ask this court to take action. I will address those that ask for evidence or arguments to not be considered.

The Plaintiff argued that the auction in itself was dishonest, not the methodology behind the transferring of the item. The fact is, that the Defendant cannot speak to what the Plaintiff knows about a given region.

Sustained on the rationality that the Defendant's argument revolved around the methodology of the transfer. The Plaintiff argued, " The process of transferring and the auction of region "willowgas" was neither dishonest nor illegal obtainment of the plot". I will ignore the "Process of transferring" aspect of this argument.

The Plaintiff is merely asking for the return of the 20,000$ and 4,971$ in charges, not 24,971$ in charges as the Defendant has pointed out. The Plaintiff believes that the 4,971$ in damages are the most minimum amount of damages that they could ask for, as it only accounted for company expenses due to the Fraud, and if the Plaintiff were to expand charges upon to emotional damages, cost of planning time spent by the Plaintiff etc. then the damages would be insurmountable by the Defendant. To resolve this issue on a timely manner and allow for the Defendant to make whole on the total money spent by the Plaintiff, we have chosen 4,971$ as damages.

I am Denying your request for relief for the gas purchases. Asking this Court to make the defendant pay for the preparations that you made would not be entirely fair to them. The preparations that the Plaintiff made in advance shows forward-thinking and preparation towards the perceived prospect of renting out the entire gas station. The Court recognizes this, however, the resources that you've invested in can still be put towards other endeavors, not just this gas station. The Court does not believe it would be fair to make the Defandant pay the investment of the Plaintiff.

2. If the litigation is approved, then the defendant will lose 20,000$ in business. There's also no guarantee that the defendant's second-highest bidder will pay the price for the rent lease of the region. However, it has already been confirmed that the second witness, ChAkselsen understood the auction and the location, as proven in Plaintiff's evidence of the staff ticket made. It seems only the plaintiff had the misunderstanding of not checking the region being auctioned. There may also be an issue with the government, not including a public rent sign for the outer region which resulted in both parties believing that there's only one rent sign for one region. If the plaintiff wants to expand costs onto emotional damages and time planning, both parties would've had insurmountable costs. The defendant only recently had time to spend on the server compared to the plaintiff. The time for the auction and the time to arrange the transfer of the auction had to depend on the plaintiff, even if the plaintiff needed to delay such a time.

I am Denying your objection to the litigation. This court has to hear litigation that comes through. We've moved past opening arguments so you have acknowledged this suit. The time for a motion to dismiss has passed.

3. The data that the defendant used to evaluate the price of fuel was market price. Many gas companies like EmeraldCo and Mooshroom had previously sold fuel at 7$ per fuel. It is unreasonable to assume the value of fuel based on a biased company's prices. So, it is not undercharging but rather overcharging. I can call witnesses since the staff that removed the signs should've seen the price that EmeraldCo was selling fuel at Willow Gas Station. EmerladCo also sells fuel at Oakridge town. Furthermore, we may ask the DEC to prove if the price of fuel is really as stated. The defendant places trust that the DEC is an unbiased party in this case.

I am Denying this specific objection because I am not allowing the Plaintiff to recover damages made on their investment. This Court is not going to focus on whether the Plaintiff got a good deal based on market forces and whether that price would be fair for the Defendant to pay. Instead, the Court will view it as property under the ownership of the Plaintiff whom has the potential to recover the investment they made.

We will now move onto opening statements (Yes I know I said rebuttals, old habits die hard). The Plaintiff can begin their opening statements now.

 

[Matthew100x]

It has been 60 hours since I've requested the plaintiff continue their arguments. Does the Plaintiff still wish to continue?

 

[Wuutie]

Yes your Honour, because of conflict of interests I will be representing xerxesmc. I ask for an 24 hour extension to prepare this case.

 

[Matthew100x]

Your request for an extension has been granted, you have an additional 48 hours to make opening statement

 

[Wuutie]

IN THE COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO DISMISS

xerxesmc (Wuutie and Piluskin representing)
Plaintiff

v.

ShinHeYing
Defendant

OPENING STATEMENT

Your honour,
We all bid at least once on the the official "DC Bid" server and saw what we got and what we payed for. Well in this lawsuit, I want to recognize that this is not the case for a fair bidding competition. My client thought he bought a gas station when this was not the case and got mislead doing so. The defendant provided a supposed image of a plot of land during her own auction, and, despite insurmountable, written evidence against her assertion, the image itself is not representative of the intended plot of land.
Whether or not this fraud was a committed maliciously or by accident is irrelevant; the fact of the matter remains the same; fraud has been committed on our client.
The auction info mentioned the gas station with the name: Willow Gas Station with a beautifull picture of a complete gas station. While the region itself was named: "willowgas". Again this is misleading by not using the proper title of the object/plot for being sold. The defendant already mentioned that the actual plot could be spotted but I dont see it properly.

According to DC Auction rules: "Only an image must be provided. This image suffices enough to describe the location of the plot being auctioned”
And no, it does not. Definition of “plot” in reference to land is a “small area of ground”, technically you can’t even see the ground; the image is not sufficient of the area described.
If we go this way we will see a lot of pictures like this in our DC Bid. You set up a picture for chest of carrots and you say carrot for sale. The bids rise and you only give a carrot because it said carrot. This is the same problem, the picture was misleading so the bidders start bidding and think they can buy a chest of carrots. (This is just an example). The duty of a realtor or auctioneer is to present the crucial information and this didn't happen. The correct information must be given from the title of the auction to the actual picture of the auction and the defendant failed twice to give the correct information.

Harp on the fact that the defendant even admitted that the picture for the plot was misleading.
Since the region was also coincidently named "willowgas" even the auctioneer can get confused as it was part of the gas station.” – Auctioneer should’ve absolutely clarified this in the bid.
Fraud is stated to be “dishonest or illegal”, and the picture of the land provided is, by the defendant’s terms, misleading. Misleading is not inherently different from dishonest; A realtor should know better than to provide a picture of a plot that she herself admits is misleading.

My client still followed the rules while being mislead by paying the defendant her money. My client admires the rules and laws and would be a shame if this could damage her trust. The defendant refused to talk for a deal so the dishonest auction could be solved.

 

[ShinHeYing]

IN THE COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OPENING STATEMENT

xerxesmc (Wuutie and Piluskin representing)
Plaintiff

v.

ShinHeYing
Defendant

OPENING STATEMENT

Your honor,

The defendant has contacted the previous Mayor of Willow who was the Mayor during the incident of this case, Vanq. It is confirmed that only the region "willowgas" is rentable. Since that is the only region rentable, it would only be logical that the region being referred to is that region as the defendant's auction clearly stated, "Auctioning the renting lease".

Upon the defendant's visit again to Willow Town. The outside area has been deemed part of "willow" as the town.
The defendant has no right to auction any land directly belonging to Willow Town. If the plaintiff wishes to have access to the outside area, the plaintiff may privately contact the current mayor of Willow, Westray.

Wuutie said, " If we go this way we will see a lot of pictures like this in our DC Bid. You set up a picture for chest of carrots and you say carrot for sale. The bids rise and you only give a carrot because it said carrot. This is the same problem, the picture was misleading so the bidders start bidding and think they can buy a chest of carrots. (This is just an example). The duty of a realtor or auctioneer is to present the crucial information and this didn't happen. The correct information must be given from the title of the auction to the actual picture of the auction and the defendant failed twice to give the correct information."

The plaintiff's example is both exaggerated and unrelated to the defendant's case. The plaintiff cannot compare the auction of "goods" to the auction of "property". Information of "goods" is always explicitly stated in the DC auctions. Past auctions may prove that. Information of "property" is always explicitly stated by location. Some auctioneers use dynmap pictures, others refer to region names, some just describe the location it is closest to by the nearest landmark, large company, etc. There have been previous examples of plots being auctioned as "being near the hospital", "near spawn" and etc. The defendant's rent region was being described as a "gas station" because the fact states it was indeed part of the gas station. In fact, it consists of the gas station main building
The defendant's picture clearly showed the location of the region. Also, as the plaintiff is also a realtor, the plaintiff had every right before bidding to travel to Willow and use the special commands bestowed upon realtors to confirm the renting area. The only crucial evidence needed for a realtor is information of the location, which was provided in the defendant's auction.

The area outside of the building is under Willow. Which means the only rent region that the defendant could've been referring to would be the interior of the building as the sign is placed there too. There's also no rent signs anywhere else near the gas station. There's only a single rent region there.

However since the plaintiff is asking for a "Motion to Dismiss", then the defendant is willing to also drop the case. Since the defendant has other matters to attend to as well. But please refrain from accusing slander in the last phrases, the defendant has done her part in answering and responding in court. The defendant has been patient enough to wait over 3 days for the plaintiff's opening statement.

As Wuutie said, " My client still followed the rules while being mislead by paying the defendant her money. My client admires the rules and laws and would be a shame if this could damage her trust. The defendant refused to talk for a deal so the dishonest auction could be solved."

This would be false as the defendant has been talking and responding.

Thank you, Your honor.

 

[Wuutie]

Objection your Honour

The defendant wasn't prepared to negotiate a deal so it won't come out here. So she did refuse to talk about making a deal. And the example is not made about good and property it's about misleading the information about an item sold on DC Bid. This has been taken out of context (my example) and is not reasonable to take this is in mind for a decision. And the fact that its not an obligation to look at a place before buying it. People buy houses online all the time because that's a good deal and they trust the information mentioned on the site. The defendant failed to do this.

Thank you, Your Honour.

Spoiler: Negotiation refused by defendant

 

[Matthew100x]

IN THE COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO DISMISS

Is this a motion to dismiss or opening statement? You are representing the plaintiff so I'm assuming it was the opening statement considering the context of your arguments.

Objection your Honour

The defendant wasn't prepared to negotiate a deal so it won't come out here. So she did refuse to talk about making a deal. And the example is not made about good and property it's about misleading the information about an item sold on DC Bid. This has been taken out of context (my example) and is not reasonable to take this is in mind for a decision. And the fact that its not an obligation to look at a place before buying it. People buy houses online all the time because that's a good deal and they trust the information mentioned on the site. The defendant failed to do this.

Thank you, Your Honour.

Please do not object to nothing. Settlement Negotiations were not a part of the Defendant's opening statements. This information was unrequested and does nothing for the court case. This objection will be ignored.

Objections should be used to ask for evidence or arguments to be removed, not to add more statements to the court case. Failure to do so will result in a contempt of court charge.

Would the Plaintiff and/or Defendant like to call upon any witnesses or have any testimonials submitted?

 

[Wuutie]

Yes your honour, it was a type mistake in my notes. This was indeed my opening statement. Excuses for the inconvenience.

 

[Wuutie]

Your Honour, I would like to call ChAkselen on the stand as an witness.

 

[Matthew100x]

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

ChAkselen will now be called to the court as requested by the Plaintiff.

@ChAkselsen, you are hereby summoned to the court of the Commonwealth of Redmont in Case No. 06-2021-12 as a witness. Please familiarize yourself with the case as it stands at present. You will receive questions from the plaintiff and may also be cross-examined.​

 

[ChAkselsen]

Yep, whats up? Although I wont be able to respond for some time if not right now...

 

[Matthew100x]

No problem, the plaintiffs may now present their questions.

 

[Wuutie]

My questions for the witness:

-Were you aware of the auction details if you wouldnt visit the region?

-Did you find the image misleading at first glance?

- Was the bid too high for what he actual got?

 

[ChAkselsen]

1:
I was not aware of the fact that it wasnt the whole station as I too belived that the stations where auctioned off as a whole. Justifying my initial high bidding. ( due to the fact gas was being sold by Zab outside of station quarters)
2
Well the picture shows the whole thing so this would lead as a confirmation of my initial thoughts. Although it was not misleading enough that the DEC decided to intervene for false bidding when revealed it was just the box behind.
This due to the fact that on after thought I belive that with how towns are setup in the first place it could make sense.
This is obv something special deal for that town, and maybe others where Zab has the boxes outside and would require someone to look it up on a closer note. Which the DEC currently has no Policy on, but will be implemented in the wake of this case.
3
Yes for a room that size, 20 000 is way to much. ( In my opinion that is )

 

[Wuutie]

No further questions your Honour.

 

[Matthew100x]

Would the Defendant like to cross-examine the witness and/or submit their own witness?

 

[ShinHeYing]

Yes, your honor.

The defendant will start her cross-examination.

Chakselsen said, " Although it was not misleading enough that the DEC decided to intervene for false bidding when revealed it was just the box behind."

Can the witness confirm that DEC didn't step into this case during the auctioning of the rent region?

Can the witness as a DEC member also confirm that none of the stated "Auctioneer rules" in the DC Bids discord were broken?

Chakselsen said, " Yes for a room that size, 20 000 is way to much. ( In my opinion that is )".

The defendant respects the witness's opinion of the value of the rent region. However, can the witness confirm that they also know the full content of which the "bidder-rules" of the DC Bids discord implies? As it regards especially the last statement. The price and value of the rent region couldn't have been predicted from the auctioneer's side of the auction. The auction's closing bid depends on the bids of the bidders.

That will be all.
Thank you, your honor.

 

[ChAkselsen]

None of our special DEC policy's was violated that is true, but it is up to the courts to decide if DC server rules and laws were broken. ( Per the first rule ). As this didnt violate any of our specially enforced policy, but it is important to note here that server rules and laws also cover DC bids but arent enforced by DEC policy which is mostly what we look for unless a conflict arises. in this case it was brought into the courts instead of through us.
Sorry for the late response, I have been meaning to check this but not gottn around to it.

 

[ChAkselsen]

None of our special DEC policy's was violated that is true, but it is up to the courts to decide if DC server rules and laws were broken. ( Per the first rule ). As this didnt violate any of our specially enforced policy, but it is important to note here that server rules and laws also cover DC bids but arent enforced by DEC policy which is mostly what we look for unless a conflict arises. in this case it was brought into the courts instead of through us.
Sorry for the late response, I have been meaning to check this but not gottn around to it.

Confirm to all the other things you asked me to re - confirm.

 

[ShinHeYing]

That will be all, your honor.

 

[Matthew100x]

Thank you ChAkselsen for answering the plaintiff's and defendant's questions.

This court will now proceed to closing statements. The Plaintiff may proceed with their closing statement followed by the Defendant. After posting closing statements, both the Plaintiff and the Defendant will stop posting while the court goes into recess for the verdict.

 

[Wuutie]

IN THE COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CLOSING STATEMENT

xerxesmc (Wuutie and Piluskin representing)
Plaintiff

v.

ShinHeYing
Defendant

CLOSING STATEMENT

Your honor,

As we have seen in the case whether through image evidence or clear testimonial from witnesses, what we see in this case is clearly dishonest advertising by the defendant. The image presented by the defendant is blatantly misleading to the point that the witness’ first impression also consisted of confusion and misunderstanding. Even the defendant themselves admitted that the picture itself was misleading. Whether or not the defendant purposefully or accidentally utilized this type of photo is irrelevant; the plaintiff was misled as to the plot of land he rented.

We can clearly see that the name of the picture is Willow Gas Station while the actual region is named: "willowgas". This is confusing and misleading. Also the fact that the defendant claims that the plaintiff needs to see and inform himself when he started bidding is not right. The auctioneer always needs to give enough information otherwise it can be seen as fraud.

While the actual bidding motions were conducted properly and the defendant did not break any of the rules provided by the DEC, the entire bid was based off of dishonest advertising, and, thus, the defendant must be found guilty of fraud. The plaintiff, on the other hand, has followed every rule to a tee and only wishes to be compensated for this breach in law. The defendant's arguments can be overthrown simply based off of the law: fraud is illegal.

Thank you, Your Honour.

 

[ShinHeYing]

Your honor,

The defendant´s personal health will not allow her to get out of bed to make the closing statement. The defendant asks for a 24-hour extension if possible. If not, the defendant will choose a representative to conduct her closing statement. But for now, the current defendant is bedridden. This statement is written with the help of the defendant´s younger sibling. If conditions improve, the defendant will provide a closing statement at an earlier time.

Thank you, your honor.

 

[Matthew100x]

You can have a 48 hour extension. Please feel better and provide a response in a timely manner set forth within the timeframe set by the above sentence.

 

[ShinHeYing]

IN THE COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CLOSING STATEMENT

xerxesmc (Wuutie and Piluskin representing)
Plaintiff

v.

ShinHeYing
Defendant

CLOSING STATEMENT

Your honor,

As we have seen in the case whether through image evidence and the witness that was presented. The defendant has not broken any of the policies or rules stated by the DEC. The defendant also did not intend for a misunderstanding regarding the region "willowgas". The defendant believes that if there was only one region rentable at the Willow gas station, it should be common knowledge between both realtors that the region being referred to is the supposed region.

The defendant should not be accused of fraud when it was the plaintiff's responsibility to check the goods/land that they were auctioning for. It was also not upon the defendant's responsibility that the plaintiff had driven up the price to such a ridiculous outcome.

The defendant had not predicted that a misunderstanding to occur during and before the course of the auction. The defendant has provided images, location, and even the cost. This is the required information of any auction within DC bids. As stated within the bidder rules, the plaintiff is responsible for paying the amount that they bidded. The defendant believes hopefully that the plaintiff is not using the court to get a full refund from their bid.

Thank you, your honor.

 

[Matthew100x]

Verdict

As the matters of the case draw to a close, this court would like to thank both parties for the time and energies that they have placed into this case.

The Plaintiff has brought forward a civil case claiming fraud against the Defendant. The Plaintiff purchased the rent region "willowgas" from the Defendant for approximately 20,000 dollars in DCBid. They made this sale on the belief that the property that they were purchasing (to rent from) was the entire gas station. However when they discovered that the property was not as suggested in the photo, they believed that they had been wronged and brought a case forward.

The Defendant responded in this matter with a defense regarding the public knowledge of the rent region. "Willowgas" was and is a building within the Willow Gas Station but is not the entire gas station. The Gas Station itself is not rentable and had the Plaintiff gone there they would have seen this for themself.

The Plaintiff called a witness who was also cross-examined by The Defendant. DEC Secretary and DCBid staff ChAkselsen, who is a related party to this matter as he also bid on the property, was questioned. The Plaintiff's questioning showed that ChAkselsen believed that the Defendant's bid was the entire property that was pictured, not the property that it actually is. The Defendant's questioning shows that ChAkselsen did not believe any immediate DCBids rules/regulations were broken but ultimately it is up to the court to make a verdict on what actually transpired

Now, as a matter of law, when a transaction happens, the buyer and seller enter into an arranged contract of sale. One of the elements of a contract is the Offer. During the Offer, Negotiations are made where the "Seller" of the object, property, item, or possession, the Defendant in this case, would make discussions about the item which the "Buyer", the Plaintiff in this case, would like to purchase. In the case of a Bid, the negotiations and offer is made by the "Seller" without input from the "Buyer". This is because the item in question is non-negotiable and assumed in good faith by the "Buyer" as being the product displayed because of the nature of the sale via auction.

It is in my opinion that Negotiations should be done in good faith and be clear on what the item is "Seller" is selling and what the "Buyer" is buying. If the "Buyer" cannot verify the authenticity of their purchase then how can they in clear conscience and state of mind bindingly enter a contract with the "Seller"? In normal negotiations, the "Buyer" has a better opportunity to discuss the item of the "Seller". However, in this case, the "Buyer", a/k/a the Plaintiff, assumed in good faith that the rent region "Willowgas" was indeed the whole gas station. The negotiations were limited to the Offer made by the "Seller" which implied that the rent region was the whole gas station. The idea that "Willowgas" was the whole gas station was the inducement that got the Plaintiff and the Witness to begin bidding on the rent region to become the "Buyer" of this contract.

If the "Buyer" believed that the item that they were purchasing was the right to rent out the entire gas station, which is understood because the Plaintiff and the Witness both believed that was what they were bidding on, then the "Seller" has misrepresented their Offer during Negotiations. I, therefore, rule in favor of the plaintiff due to the Defendant's misrepresentation of their Offer.

I Hereby Order the Following to occur:

​

- I draw upon Common Law Tradition to order the Rescission of the contract ab initio and declare it null and void (https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/recission).​

- I am writing a permanent injunction for the DCBid to cancel the Defendant's Auction of "Willowgas" and that the rent region is returned to the Defendant.​

- I find the Defendant has committed Fraud by committing misrepresentation in the auction. I order that the Defendant be taken into custody by the DoJ and serve a sentence of 10 minutes of jail time and pay a fine of $200 dollars. Since the contract is ab Initio and null and void, they do not have to have any items or money taken from them. Following Stare Decisis, it can be considered that misrepresentation in a contract can be considered fraud and be called "fraudulent misrepresentation" with the same punishment as fraud.​

- I order that $200 dollars be /fined from the Defandant be /unfined to the Plaintiff's Legal Counsel.​

​

This court is now adjourned.