- Joined
- Dec 21, 2021
- Messages
- 32
- Thread Author
- #1
Username: MegaMinerM
I am representing a client
Who is your Client?: Dimitre977
File(s) attached
What Case are you Appealing?: [2025] FCR 6
Link to the Original Case: Lawsuit: Adjourned - Dimitre977 v. kesballo [2025] FCR 6
Basis for Appeal: The Court ruled that there was no contract submitted and thus its express terms can be ignored, even though it was clearly submitted under the name P-05. The court could have also easily manually typed in the link to the contract seen in the signing message in P-01. The Court has admitted this mistake in the #legal channel(see attached evidence) on the DemocracyCraft discord but has refused to edit the verdict based. The plaintiffs legal fees were lowered because of this mistake.
The Court used the balance of the Defendant to rule the contract void due to the Defendant lacking the capacity to enter into the contract. However while the Defendant does have a balance of $1,589.02 dollars, we can’t forget that there are many forms to store money within Redmont. It is entirely possible that the Defendant placed their other funds into a bank, financial institution, company funds, or spent it. As such the basis of having a balance close to the starting balance of a player shouldn’t be used to void entire contracts.
Justice Matthew100x states that: “It is unlikely that the defendant would have accepted this deal had they known the contract was likely to take their starting balance within a matter of hours, and they lacked the playtime necessary to recognize that such a deal was bad”. However exhibit P-02 from the original lawsuit shows that the buy price of the Golden Drill which the Defendant rented is $20,000 dollars. As the Court themselves said, the contract was likely to take their starting balance within a few hours, however paying $200 per hour is much cheaper and easier to achieve than paying $20,000 to buy the same drill.
It is never shown that the Defendant was unaware of the effects this contract would have. Although the Defendant can be defined as a new player, the rule of New Player Fraud can’t apply as the rental prices are universal and cost the same for all players. Due to the high cost of Golden Drills, prices have to be set accordingly.
The contract that the Defendant signed clearly indicated the rental price of the drill and the ability to return the drill at any time and end the rental period with the associated costs. The simplicity of the contract itself outweighs any lack of playtime experience the Defendant may have had. A reasonable person test can be applied here, as being a new player does not prevent someone from understanding basic math. The Defendant could surely assess how quickly they would deplete their balance under the contract’s terms. The contract’s terms were straightforward, and the Defendant could reasonably determine whether or not the agreement was financially viable. This contract was short with only barely a page of text excluding titles, exceedingly simple and could be summarised in 2 sentences: “You can rent a drill for 200 dollars per hour by buying it at the chestshop and later selling it at the chestshop. You pay after.” This is not some complicated company merger transaction.
The Court also presumes that the starting balance of the Defendant will be wiped away, however, the DemocracyCraft Wiki (Miner - DemocracyCraft Wiki) states that: “You can speed up mining by purchasing a drilling vehicle from the Reveille Dealership”. Therefore it is entirely possible and plausible to assume that by renting out a drill which speeds up mining will also therefore lead to an increase in ores and items mined, and subsequently if sold, can lead to more money earned. While this isn’t an economics lecture, renting out drills for more money than one can earn doesn’t seem like a sustainable business practice. Moreover, the contract also includes the clause “The Employee has the option to sell all mined ores and blocks exclusively to Bluesteelind”. This shows that the Defendant didn’t even have to go through the effort of selling the ores and blocks themselves as they could directly sell all items gained to the Plaintiff for a profit.
Even if the original contract is deemed void, the Public Defender representing the Defendant agreed to the settlement contract in which the Defendant agrees to pay all damages and admit liability. A legal contract needs acceptance, which is defined as “(b) Acceptance. Acceptance is the positive and unambiguous response to an offer communicated to the offeror, mirroring the terms of the offer and conveyed through various means.” (Act of Congress - Contracts Act),
Rule 6.5 of Court Rules “Bar to Public Defender Competency” (Information - Court Rules and Procedures), states:
“A player who qualifies and is given a Public Defender to handle their case are only entitled to an attorney who will fulfill the following:
Timely respond to cases on their behalf
Protect the player’s constitutional rights
Attempt to move the matter favorably in their client’s situation, even settling if needed.“
A public defender is not required to listen to the demands of a player who is utilizing the public defender, nor is the public defender necessarily required to argue their client’s innocence.”.
The Public Defender in this case attempted to move the matter favorably in their client’s situation, and settled the case. Public defenders are not required to listen to the demands of a player who is utilizing the Public Defender. As the Public Defender was unable to come into contact with the Defendant, according to the assigned Public Defender it was in their client’s best interest to settle the case. As such the settlement contract should be legally binding. This would result in the matter being dismissed by the plaintiff, and the defendant making compensatory payments. The matter at hand in the case when the verdict was rendered is if the settlement could have the power of verdict, so that the payments could be collected according to the Debt Recovery Act with fining. In essence the case was already over when the Court did its sua sponte investigation and verdict.
While Judges are able to act sua sponte, the Court extensively investigated the case without any notification, drew conclusions out of this investigation, and since this was a Verdict, didn’t allow the Plaintiff to counter their arguments or respond to it in any way. Moreover, this is an adversarial judicial system, not inquisitorial. The parties are meant to investigate the case, present it to the Court who then reaches a verdict. This is not an inquisitorial system where the case is brought to the Court, who actively investigates the facts of this case (like for example the balance of the defendant) as what happened here.
The way this decision was reached did not allow for any arguments to be made except by appealing. The appellant contends that this is a major judicial overreach into the normal process of a case and the right of a fair trial. We think that the Court should have said if a directed settlement was possible or not, which was the issue at hand. Nothing more. The Court should never have actively investigated the case, certainly not to this extent.
The appellant respectfully requests the verdict be overturned, and the settlement contract upheld.
Supporting Evidence:
