Lawsuit: Adjourned FlyingBlocks v. dodrio3 [2023] DCR 1

Status
Not open for further replies.
LilDigiVert

LilDigiVert

Citizen
Former President
Supporter
3rd Anniversary Order of Redmont Staff 2nd Anniversary
LilDigiVert
LilDigiVert
Attorney
Joined
Dec 29, 2020
Messages
473
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


FlyingBlocks (Represented by LilDigiVert)
Plaintiff

v.

dodrio3
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

In pursuant with Rules and Laws 10.1, defining fraud as “an intentional or reckless misrepresentation or omission of an important fact, especially a material one, to a victim who justifiably relies on that misrepresentation; and the victim party or entity suffered actual, quantifiable injury or damages as a result of the misrepresentation or omission,” the Plaintiff sues the Defendant for a misleading title and screenshot in a DCBids auction. This has led to significant monetary losses for the Plaintiff.


I. PARTIES
1. FlyingBlocks
2. Dodrio3

II. FACTS
1. Dodrio3 (Defendant) posted an auction for 2 double chests of sugarcane in their DCBids auction channel (Exhibit A)
2. FlyingBlocks (Plaintiff) won the auction and paid Defendant for the 2 double chests of sugarcane. (Exhibit A)
3. Dodrio3 seemingly leaves all DC-related servers and blocks FlyingBlocks on discord, closing all lines of communication with the auction without providing the sugarcane the Plaintiff won in the auction. (Exhibit B)
4. As the Plaintiff believed they won the auction, they did not resupply their sugarcane/items needed to be crafted with sugarcane. As the Plaintiff owns a prominent enchanted book business in Reveille, sugarcane is a necessity to the proper functioning of the business.
5. As a result of not receiving the items the Plaintiff rightfully won, the Plaintiff was forced to spend an extended period of time to find an immediate supply of sugarcane for necessary use.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. The Defendant committed fraud. As defined by R&L 10.1, this is “an intentional or reckless misrepresentation or omission of an important fact, especially a material one, to a victim who justifiably relies on that misrepresentation; and the victim party or entity suffered actual, quantifiable injury or damages as a result of the misrepresentation or omission,” The Defendant did not transfer the items to the auction winner as mandated by DCBids’ Rules. Rather, the Defendant blocked the Plaintiff and left all DC-related discords after the latter asked when a good time would be to transfer the items.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. 2 double chests of sugarcane.
2. A refund of $300.
3. $2,500 for lost sales as a result of supply chain disruption.
4. $1,000 for time spent stressfully scrambling to find sugarcane/books/paper to maintain essential business functions.
5. $500 in legal fees.

Exhibit A: https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/985642736998834226/1062414375878664230/image.png
Exhibit B:https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/985642736998834226/1062414679638540368/image.png
View attachment 31045

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 11th day of January 2023
 
dcr.png
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
WRIT OF SUMMONS

dodrio3 must appear before the court in the case of FlyingBlocks v. dodrio3 [2023] DCR 1. Failure to appear within 48 hours of this summons will result in a default judgment.

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.​
 
The Defendant's time to respond has expired. This court is now in recess until a default judgement is delivered.
 
Could the Plaintiff show any evidence regarding "lost sales as a result of supply chain disruption" or "time spent stressfully scrambling to find sugarcane/books/paper to maintain essential business functions?"

Please provide this evidence within 24 hours if possible.
 
I’m working today- can I get until COB Monday?
 
Your time is well beyond expired. This court is now in recess until a default judgement is delivered.
 
Sorry about that - had a legit emergency while moving out.
 
I will allow one final extension of 12 hours from now, due to your IRL reasons.
 
My client lives in a time zone where we won’t be able to communicate until those 12 hours are up. Can I get 24?
 
LilDigiVert said:
My client lives in a time zone where we won’t be able to communicate until those 12 hours are up. Can I get 24?
Click to expand...
You have 24 hours from the original extension (end time being 7:10pm EST, Jan. 18)
 
Thank you so much for the extension, your honor.

To respect the Court's time, I'm here to inform you that my client will not be able to provide documented evidence to show a loss of sales or time spent to maintain existing business operations. Rather, it appears that the lack of transferring has caused a delay in the opening of his new business, which led to a loss in potential sales. Here is a statement:

I am not selling them yet since I want to have a whole bunch of them before opening the shop. So you could say that I expect certain items to be delivered when I buy them because I need them for creating that stock of books I need before being able to open.
Click to expand...
 
Thank you for your response. This court is now (actually) in recess until a default judgement is delivered.
 

Verdict


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
VERDICT
Flying Blocks v. dodrio3 [2023] DCR 1

I. PLAINTIFF’S POSITION
1. The Defendant committed Fraud.
2. They did this by posting an auction, informing the Plaintiff they won the auction, and then failing to follow through with giving the items to the Plaintiff after the Plaintiff paid.

II. DEFENDANT’S POSITION
1. The Defendant failed to appear before the court.

III. THE COURT OPINION
1. Looking at the precedent of Ansgard_lst v. MelisaMinecrft74 [2022] FCR 11, it is clear that in general, Auctions and their bids, at least within the DC Bids server, are considered to be legally binding contracts.
2. This court acknowledges the precedent set by the Federal Court, and also acknowledges the contract created between the Plaintiff and the Defendant in this case.
3. Expanding upon the ruling FCR 11, I wish to explain the legal reasons why the court acknowledges that a contract exists, rather than merely saying that it does:
- A contract is valid if, and only if, it begins with an Offer and also contains Acceptance, Consideration, Capacity, Legality, and Legal Intent.
- By posting the auction in DC Bids, the Defendant clearly and unequivocally made an Offer – two double-chests worth of sugarcane for the price of winning the auction.
- By posting the bid of $300, the Plaintiff clearly and unequivocally Accepted the Offer, if $300 came to be the winning bid (and it did).
- The Consideration ($300) and Capacity (The sugarcane) were clearly present.
- Nothing illegal was offered in this contract, so Legality is present.
- This was clearly a serious auction, so Legal Intent is present as well.
4. Again, it is clear that a contract existed, and the Defendant clearly committed Fraud by grossly misrepresenting the apparent fact that he would sell the sugarcane through the auction.
5. However, no losses regarding Fraud beyond the $300 have any evidence whatsoever.

IV. VERDICT
1. I hereby rule in favor of the Plaintiff, and grant a partial Prayer for Relief.

I hereby order the Department of Justice to fine the Defendant $800 (Loss to fraud + legal fees) and unfine the Plaintiff the same amount.

The District Court thanks all involved.

 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top