Lawsuit: Adjourned Ansgard_Ist v. MelisaMinecrft74 [2022] FCR 11

Your Honour, a total of 109 hours have passed since the Defendant has been summoned to appear before this court, yet has failed to do so. We would like to move forward with a default judgment, as stated in the Writ of Summons.

A Public Defender will be appointed to this case.

Your honor,

I have been appointed to this case as the Public Defender for the defense. I am requesting a 24 hour extension, as I attempt to contact the defense and familiarize myself with this case.

I will give you 48 hours to prepare yourself for this case.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO DISMISS

The defense moves that the complaint in this case be dismissed, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:

1. Despite what is outlined in the rules section for DC Bid, bids aren't considered binding contracts. Section 6 of the Foundation of Contract Law Act states the following:
- To be considered a legally-enforceable contract, it must begin with an offer. There was no official, explicit offer from the plaintiff nor DC Bid regarding a contract, but rather a note of a rule in one channel out of dozens in DC Bid.
- The offeree (in this case the defendant) must know of the offer in order to accept. Even if this was a legally binding contract for bids, there are no steps underwent in DC Bid to ensure that all bidders are aware of the rules and as such offerees may not know of the alleged offer.
- A statement of information isn't valid for acceptance. The rule that the plaintiff is relying on is a statement of information, and as such isn't valid to be considered a binding contract.
2. There is no official contract with the defendant's signature agreeing to these terms. Merely bidding shouldn't be considered as an equivalent to acceptance.

DATED: This 3rd Day of February 2022

The Plaintiff may present its rebuttal within 48 hours.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
REBUTTAL TO MOTION TO DISMISS

Ansgard_Ist
Plaintiff

v.

MelisaMinecrft74
Defendant

REBUTTAL
1. The plaintiff would like to argue that bids are considered contract binding by referencing Section 6 of the Foundation of Contract Law Act and rebutting the arguments made by the defence as follows:
- An offer does exist, in this case, that would be plot c-377 in exchange for $11,100.
- Ignorance of the law (or rules in this case) is not a valid defence as it is the responsibility of the bidder to understand the rules surrounding DC Bid and its process of operation. As per 'and as such offerees may not know of the alleged offer', it is the offeree's responsibility as a bidder to have understood the terms under which DC Bid operates.
- The bid is to be considered an offer as the bid for $11,100 was finalised as the amount due in exchange for plot c-377. While the auction itself is an invitation to treat, both parties have agreed to exchange plot c-377 to the fixed amount of $11,100.
2. In this case, the submission of the bid is considered to be the signature of the contract in question. Arguing that merely bidding is not a signature for a contract is false, as there are oral contracts where no physical or visible signature is required at all, and in this case, a visible signature in the form of the bid is in fact present.

DATED: This 3rd Day of February 2022

Motion to dismiss is rejected. We move on to opening statements. The plaintiff may preside one within 48 hours.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OPENING STATEMENT

Ansgard_Ist
Plaintiff

v.

MelisaMinecrft74
Defendant

OPENING STATEMENT
This case is a simple one, yet its importance should not be underestimated. All we really have is the Defendant failing to follow the DC Bid rules by bidding an amount of money, yet failing to pay it when it is confirmed that they have won. It has been clear for many months that bids are legally binding and that one agrees to pay the amount one offered should one win the bid. Rules should be enforced, without an exception, because if that would not be the case, it would set a dangerous precedent where people are more than free to do as they please and put DC Bid into mayhem. Ruling in favour of anyone but the plaintiff, in this case, would mean that I can bid, win the bid, and do nothing after that as if it was a dream. The consequences of such would be ruinous, and we utterly believe that the Court should reasonably resolve any conflicts, such as the one in question while ensuring that no potentially harmful precedents are set.

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 9th day of February 2022

The Defendant may file an opening statement within 48 hours.

I am requesting an extension of 24 hours, I got a cold and wasn't able to write up a response. I should have the response in by the end of the day.

Granted

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OPENING STATEMENT

Ansgard_Ist
Plaintiff

v.

MeilisaMinecrft74
Defendant

OPENING STATEMENT

While bids may be considered legally binding, it is important to look at the specific details of the so-called "contract" that MelisaMinecrft74 agreed to by bidding. The rules listed in #bidder-rules, that are considered the terms of the contract, encapsulate the requirements for bidding but doesn't mention anything regarding exchange of goods. Morally, the defendant may be obligated to pay the plaintiff, but they are not legally obligated to as it is not specifically or explicitly mentioned in the terms in #bidder-rules.

Furthermore, the Foundation of Contract Law Act states that the defendant must know of the offer to accept. To my knowledge, there are no specific steps in DC Bid to ensure that every single bidder is aware of the stipulations of bidding, and as such the contract should be considered void as the defendant may not have known about it given the lack of proactivity to ensure that all bidders are aware of the contract that they are agreeing to by bidding.

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 February 2022

Thank you very much. If you want to call witnesses please provide a list of names to call on the stand within 48 hours.

The plaintiff does not wish to call any witnesses at this time.

I don't wish to call any witnesses in at this time.

Then we move on to closing statements, the Plaintiff may provide one within 48 hours.

@AndreyMia if you wishes to present a closing statement, do this within 1 hour. Deadline is near expiring.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CLOSING STATEMENT

Ansgard_Ist
Plaintiff

v.

MeilisaMinecrft74
Defendant

CLOSING STATEMENT

Your Honour, the simple reality of this case is that the fate of the system on which DC Bid operates and has been operating for many months and even years is at stake. What we have is simple; the defendant bid $11,100 for plot c-377, but has failed to pay for it. The defendant was contacted multiple times about their victory in the auction by the plaintiff but to no avail. The rules upon which DC Bid has operated throughout its existence has allowed it to operate in a fluid manner without any major complications.

The defendant may claim that auctions are not legally binding, but that is not entirely true. It is the responsibility of bidders to know and understand the rules before participating in the auctions that happen in DC Bid, and by participating in such auctions it is assumed that bidders do in fact know and understand the rules. Failing to pay for a won auction may potentially damage the auctioneer is financially. The defendant may also claim that auctions are not contracts but that, as well, is not entirely accurate. The defendant made an offer of $11,100 in exchange for the plaintiff's offer in the form of plot c-377. Both parties, while presumably knowing and understanding the rules, have agreed for an exchange of goods while that may and should be considered a contract. The defendant may claim that in order to agree to a contract one must explicitly state that, but that is not true. To provide a real-life analogy, imagine going to a restaurant, ordering your food, and not paying for it. As a customer, you are expected to pay for the food and service that you are receiving while not signing any document specifically stating such.

The implications on DC Bid in the event where this case is ruled in favour of the defendant may be serious in nature. The plaintiff would urge your honour to consider such implications when making the verdict for this case in a careful manner. The future of the DC Bid may be at stake, but it could be saved.

DATED: This 19th day of February 2022

The Defendant has now 48 hours to file a closing statement.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CLOSING STATEMENT

Ansgard_Ist
Plaintiff

v.

MeilisaMinecrft74
Defendant

CLOSING STATEMENT

While the defendant did enter the allegedly legally binding contract, the fact of the matter is that none of the terms in the contract in question (which might I add no longer exists and has been deleted in DC Bid over the duration of this lawsuit) mentioned that the defendant specifically had to pay their bid, but rather have enough money for their bid. As such, the defendant couldn't possibly have violated it in the manner the Plaintiff is making them out to have because they werent legally obligated to pay, only legally obligated to have enough money before their bid. Furthermore, to my knowledge, the defendant never recieved the property either and as such shouldn't be forced to pay even if this was included in the shoddily made contract.

I would like to clear up confusion that the Plaintiff may seem to have: I'm not arguing that the contract isn't legally binding. While I initially moved to dismiss over this, the court clearly disagrees and as such I am arguing that the specific terms of the contract were never violated.

Additionally, the plaintiff failed to provide evidence showing the specific terms of the contract. The contract, which was posted in #dc-bid-rules, is no longer there and has since been replaced with a new contract. As such, the court should be unable to rule on whether or not the terms of the contract were violated as we literally cannot view the old contract.

There are next to no significant implications that this will have on DC Bid. The suggestion that the future of DC Bid may be at stake over this matter is a mere dramatization, especially given the introduction of a new contract to help prevent a situation similar to this from happening again.

DATED: This 21st day of February 2022

Before posting the verdict I would like to request if the Plaintiff has a screenshot of the bidding rules that ware active when the problem occurred.

Apologies for the delay,

At the moment I am figuring out whether a record or a screenshot of the DC Bid rules that were in place at the time of the incident at hand exists or not, and whether I may use it (in case it does exist) in this court. Whenever I am certain beyond reasonable doubt that a screenshot of the bidding rules that were in place at the time of the incident exists or not, or whether if it does exist I have permission to fulfil the request of the court I will answer your Honour's request at my earliest convenience.

Thank you.

Thank you for noticing me.

The DC Bid rules that existed at the time of the incident go as follows:

Given that the plaintiff has submitted new evidence I would like to resubmit my closing argument, if possible.

A change may be made within 24 hours same as the other party.

The plaintiff does not wish to revise the closing arguments.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CLOSING STATEMENT

Ansgard_Ist
Plaintiff

v.

MeilisaMinecrft74
Defendant

CLOSING STATEMENT

While the defendant did enter the allegedly legally binding contract, the fact of the matter is that none of the terms in the contract in question (which might I add no longer exists and has been evidently deleted in DC Bid) mentioned that the defendant specifically had to pay their bid, but rather have enough money for their bid. As such, the defendant couldn't possibly have violated it in the manner the Plaintiff is making them out to have because they werent legally obligated to pay, only legally obligated to have enough money before their bid. Furthermore, to my knowledge, the defendant never recieved the property either and as such shouldn't be forced to pay even if this was included in the shoddily made contract.

I would like to clear up confusion that the Plaintiff may seem to have: I'm not arguing that the contract isn't legally binding. While I initially moved to dismiss over this, the court clearly disagrees and as such I am arguing that the specific terms of the contract were never violated.

The plaintiff's evidence of the contract actually existing is in a locked DEC channel, which likely isn't available for public viewing. Given this, the contract in question violates the Foundation of Contract Law Act as it isn't easily accessible, to our current knowledge. Furthermore, we have no specific evidence that this contract was actually posted in DC Bid.

There are next to no significant implications that this will have on DC Bid. The suggestion that the future of DC Bid may be at stake over this matter is a mere dramatization, especially given the introduction of a new contract to help prevent a situation similar to this from happening again.

DATED: This 6th Day of March