Lawsuit: Adjourned Bombaz2005 v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2024] FCR 78

Alexander P. Love

Alexander P. Love

Citizen
Justice Department
Supporter
Popular in the Polls Legal Eagle Statesman Order of Redmont
AlexanderLove
AlexanderLove
Attorney
Joined
Jun 2, 2021
Messages
1,380
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


Bombaz2005 (Represented by Prestige Law Firm)
Plaintiff

v.

The Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:



I. PARTIES
1. Bombaz2005 (Plaintiff and Witness)
2. The Department of Construction and Transportation (Agents of the tortfeasor)
3. Starlight0661 (Illegal recipient of the asset in question and Witness)
4. AnArab (Witness)
5. The_Superior10 (Witness)

II. FACTS
1. On May 17th, av-y012 was listed for auction in which the plaintiff became a valid participant.
2. The same day, the plaintiff placed a bid of $12,500 citing the funds would be coming from a bank account (Exhibit A).
3. Just after, Starlight0661 placed a bid for $15,000, then the plaintiff immediately followed with $15,500 all on the same day (Exhibit B).
4. On the 18th, The_Superior10, on behalf of the DCT, announced Starlight0661 as the winner despite Bombaz2005 having the winning bid (Exhibit C).

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. $15,500 is a higher bid than $15,000. The source of the funds were stated, and according to DCT policy (Exhibit D), the source only needs to be stated which could be once. There is no contractual obligation to state the source of funds every single bid.
2. Precedent exists that when something is stated once in an auction, it is implied for the rest of the auction on future bids: ANDREASP15 v. The Commonwealth of Redmont (link). In this case, someone previously stated a dollar symbol for units and k to denote thousand: $8k. They later bid "9" and because of their inclusion of the unit and suffix previously, the bid was legally treated as $9k. By this same token, stating bank on one bid implies it for future bids.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. av-y012 be transferred from Starlight0661 to Bombaz2005.
2. Starlight0661 to be unfined $15,000 from the DCT balance.
3. Bombaz2005 to be fined $15,500, once money is withdrawn from his bank account.
4. Punitive damages amounting to $10,000 for the outrageous and belligerent conduct of the DCT and the inconvenience their overly stringent (and incorrect) interpretation of policy and law caused.
5. Loss of enjoyment damages amounting to $5,000 since Bombaz2005 was not able to enjoy his legal property for several weeks (especially by the end of this trial).
6. The value of this case is $15,500 + $10,000 + $5,000 = $30,500. 30% of that is $9,150, so the plaintiff requests $9,150 in legal fees. If the value of the case is decreased throughout the proceedings, the plaintiff alternatively requests 30% of the final value of the case or $5,000 in legal fees, whichever is higher by the Legal Damages Act (link).

V. EVIDENCE
1716873990218.png
1716874017940.png
1716874056995.png
1716873936434.png

VI. EMERGENCY INJUNCTION
Due to a property being in question which can be altered from its original state or sold to someone who will irreparably damage the value of the property in question, the plaintiff motions for an injunction to be issued for the duration of this case compelling Starlight0661 to remain the owner of av-y012 and to not make any alterations to the property, nor to put the property up for collateral or be of any involvement in any contract.



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 27th day of May, 2024.
 
Last edited:
Seal_Judiciary.png




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

@Unseatedduke1 is required to appear before the court in the case of the Bombaz2005 v. Commonwealth of Redmont. Failure to appear within 72 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, including the option of an in-game trial should both parties request one.​
 
Last edited:
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO DISMISS​

The Commonwealth of Redmont moves to dismiss this case under Rule 5.5 (Lack of Claim) for the following reasons:

I. Claim 1
The Plaintiff asserts that "1. $15,500 is a higher bid than $15,000. The source of the funds were stated, and according to DCT policy (Exhibit D), the source only needs to be stated which could be once. There is no contractual obligation to state the source of funds every single bid."

Your Honor, Exhibit D clearly states, "Should an individual wish to bid via an alternate account, the player must state the source of the funds (i.e., Bank, Company, Other Form)." All DCT auctions adhere to this rule. If a bid does not specify the source of funds and the bidder's in-game balance cannot cover the amount, the rule states, "In the instance that a player's balance is at the required threshold but falls below it by the time of the auction's end, the next highest bid is the default winner." The Plaintiff failed to specify the source of funds for their bid. When the DCT checked the Plaintiff's in-game balance, it was insufficient to cover the amount, so the auction was rightfully awarded to the next highest bidder.

II. Claim 2
The Plaintiff cites the precedent from ANDREASP15 v. The Commonwealth of Redmont, where a bid of "$8k" implied subsequent bids were in thousands, thus treating "9" as "$9k." The Plaintiff argues that stating "bank" once should imply it for all future bids in the auction.

Your Honor, This precedent pertains to the use of the "$" symbol and the letter "k" to denote thousands, not to the account from which funds are drawn. Regardless of court precedent, the DCT's rules are clear: each bid must specify the source of funds if they are not coming from the bidder's in-game balance.

Conclusion
Your Honor, these claims lack standing against the Commonwealth. The DCT followed its guidelines for handling the auction. Each auction has the same rule: bidders must state the source of funds if they are not from their in-game balance. The Plaintiff failed to comply with this rule and now seeks damages for an issue they caused.

The Commonwealth of Redmont respectfully requests that this case be dismissed under Rule 5.5 for lack of claim.
 
Unseatedduke1 said:
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO DISMISS​

The Commonwealth of Redmont moves to dismiss this case under Rule 5.5 (Lack of Claim) for the following reasons:

I. Claim 1
The Plaintiff asserts that "1. $15,500 is a higher bid than $15,000. The source of the funds were stated, and according to DCT policy (Exhibit D), the source only needs to be stated which could be once. There is no contractual obligation to state the source of funds every single bid."

Your Honor, Exhibit D clearly states, "Should an individual wish to bid via an alternate account, the player must state the source of the funds (i.e., Bank, Company, Other Form)." All DCT auctions adhere to this rule. If a bid does not specify the source of funds and the bidder's in-game balance cannot cover the amount, the rule states, "In the instance that a player's balance is at the required threshold but falls below it by the time of the auction's end, the next highest bid is the default winner." The Plaintiff failed to specify the source of funds for their bid. When the DCT checked the Plaintiff's in-game balance, it was insufficient to cover the amount, so the auction was rightfully awarded to the next highest bidder.

II. Claim 2
The Plaintiff cites the precedent from ANDREASP15 v. The Commonwealth of Redmont, where a bid of "$8k" implied subsequent bids were in thousands, thus treating "9" as "$9k." The Plaintiff argues that stating "bank" once should imply it for all future bids in the auction.

Your Honor, This precedent pertains to the use of the "$" symbol and the letter "k" to denote thousands, not to the account from which funds are drawn. Regardless of court precedent, the DCT's rules are clear: each bid must specify the source of funds if they are not coming from the bidder's in-game balance.

Conclusion
Your Honor, these claims lack standing against the Commonwealth. The DCT followed its guidelines for handling the auction. Each auction has the same rule: bidders must state the source of funds if they are not from their in-game balance. The Plaintiff failed to comply with this rule and now seeks damages for an issue they caused.

The Commonwealth of Redmont respectfully requests that this case be dismissed under Rule 5.5 for lack of claim.
Click to expand...
This motion is rejected. Rule 5.5 states “A Motion to Dismiss may be filed for failure to state a claim for relief, or against a claim for relief that has insufficient evidence to support the civil or criminal charge.” The plaintiff did state a claim for relief, and has provided evidence to justify their suit.

What you are wanting me to do is rule on the case without letting the case play out which I will not do at this stage. The purpose of this case will be for both sides to present their arguments as to what the DCT guidelines are, and whether those guidelines have been followed lawfully, in their entirety and fairly.

Your deadline remains in effect for your response.
 
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT​

Bombaz2005
Plaintiff

v.

The Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
1. We affirm that $15,500 is more than $15,000. We deny that the source of funds was stated in accordance with DCT policy in the $15,000 "bid" made by the plaintiff. The plaintiff claims that the DCT should have known the source of the funds, but the offer was ambiguous and did not specify the account from which the funds were to come. Therefore, the DCT assumed it was from the player's in-game account.

2. We affirm that there is precedent for using the "$" and "k" symbols regarding bids. We deny that this precedent applies to an ambiguous offer that clearly does not follow DCT policy. When the DCT agent reviewed the final bids and found that the funds were not in the account, the bid was deemed invalid.

II. DEFENCES
1. The plaintiff did not follow DCT policy and violated a direct rule of the auction. When the DCT reviewed the bids, it assumed the funds were to come from the game account, as the bid did not specify otherwise. Upon verifying the account and finding the funds absent, the DCT followed its guidelines and awarded the item to the next highest bid with available funds.

2. Although precedent exists for the use of "$" and "k" symbols in bids, it does not apply to offers that fail to specify the source of funds. The DCT is only required to verify the availability of funds for the winning bid, not to investigate past bids for fund sources.

This case should have been dismissed for failure to state a valid claim the plaintiff failed to state a law that allows them to claim damages. The plaintiff broke a rule and is attempting to circumvent the DCT auction guidelines. The plaintiff is citing irrelevant "precedents" to justify their position.

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 5th day of June 2024.
 
Your Honour, I will be taking over this case on behalf of prestige law firm. May we please have a verdict on the emergency injunction before unfixable damage is done.
 
May I now present my opening stament your Honour. To ensure my client receives his constitutional right to a fair and speedy trial
 
Alexander P. Love said:
VI. EMERGENCY INJUNCTION
Due to a property being in question which can be altered from its original state or sold to someone who will irreparably damage the value of the property in question, the plaintiff motions for an injunction to be issued for the duration of this case compelling Starlight0661 to remain the owner of av-y012 and to not make any alterations to the property, nor to put the property up for collateral or be of any involvement in any contract.
Click to expand...

This matter is a policy dispute between the Department of Construction and Bombaz. At this stage, I am not satisfied that the court must interfere with the property of another citizen.

Further, I am not inclined to grant an injunction on the now owner of AV-Y012, noting it is now just short of a month since the sale of the property. The time which has elapsed since the sale of the property through until now is excessive for an injunction designed to prevent harm.

Injunction denied.
 
We will now move into discovery. I invite both parties to submit any further evidence to the court.

Discovery will end in 7 days or upon request of both parties.
 
You're Honour, I am taking a break from law work over pay disputes ItsBlazex should shortly reassign someone to this case
 
The Dispute has now been sorted.
 
Discovery has now concluded.

We will start with the Plaintiff's opening statement, followed by the defendant's opening statement.

The plaintiff has 72 hours to submit their opening statement and the defendant has 72 hours post the plaintiff's opening statement to file their own.

In future, if you do not intend to utilise discovery please inform the court.

@Bombaz2005
@Alexander P. Love
 
End said:
Discovery has now concluded.

We will start with the Plaintiff's opening statement, followed by the defendant's opening statement.

The plaintiff has 72 hours to submit their opening statement and the defendant has 72 hours post the plaintiff's opening statement to file their own.

In future, if you do not intend to utilise discovery please inform the court.

@Bombaz2005
@Alexander P. Love
Click to expand...
I am not involved in this case anymore your honor. This is Prestige’s case.
 
End said:
and who might that be
Click to expand...
That is itsBlazeX’s firm, Dodrio is their employee hence why his postings have been recent.
 
End said:
and who might that be
Click to expand...
Your honor, I am the Managing Partner at Prestige Law Firm. I will have an opening statement posted shortly.
 
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Opening Statement

Thank you, Your Honor. In this we seek to prove that our client, Bombaz2005, was denied his rightful winnings in the auction of av-y012. In the evidence presented, it is clear that,

a. Bombaz2005 placed a bid of $12,500, citing that the money would come from a bank account
b. Bombaz2005 was denied his rightful winnings of the auction, as according to ANDREASP15 v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2024] DCR 5, once a bid is declared with certain information, that information is implied in the rest of the bids of that person. This means that, when implying the bid money was coming from the plaintiff’s bank account in the auction, it would carry over to the rest of the bids on the auction.

Therefore, the plaintiff argues that Bombaz2005’s bid of $15,500 was valid, legally binding, and the winning bid of the auction.

EDIT: Fixed minor formatting issue
 
We request a 48 hour extension given my recent appointment to go through the case. Thank you
 
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Opening Statement

Bombaz did bid $15500 but this bid did not follow the rules of the auction. Even though their previous bid stated it was coming from their bank it is unclear if this bid meant the same. This bid could have indicated that the money was now in their personal balance and not the bank. With this uncertainty the bid must have been disquailified in accordance to the Auction rules

They Plaintiff uses the Precedent AndreaSP15 v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2024] DCR 4 and claims this situation is the exact same which it isnt. in Andrea's case the bid went from 8k to 9 which to a reasonable person it would seem they would be raising their bid to 9k. It would be unreasonable to believe any sane person would change their bid from $8000 to $9. The situation in this lawsuit, a reasonable person could believe that inbetween bids the money was transfered between the bank and their personal account.

It would be an unfair advantage to give someone the ability to bid with their bank balance once and accept their winning bid in both their bank balance and their personal balance. The rules say the bid must include the alternate account the money is coming from (Exhibit D). This is not the fault of the commonwealth when the bidder Bombaz failed to abid by the rules and only in retrospect tries to accuse the commonwealth of not giving him enough leniency. If the bid does not follow the rules the DCT has the right to disquailify the bid no matter the context of any previous.
 
Noting that no witnesses have been called or evidence submitted during discovery, would both parties like to move into a summary judgement or is there a preference to make final arguments in closing statements?

To proceed to summary we require the consent of both parties.


@ko531 @Mask3D_WOLF
 
The defense would like to move for summary judgement, Your Honor.
 
(Im guessing Masked meant plaintiff and not defense)

The Defense wishes to proceed to closing statements and not summary judgement
 
My apologies Your Honor, I meant plaintiff
 
Very well, the plaintiff may submit their closing statement within 72 Hours.

Defence to follow in the 72 hours after.
 
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Closing Statement

Thank you, Your Honor, let’s go over the facts of the case one more time.

a. Bombaz2005 placed a bid of $12,500, citing that the money would come from a bank account
b. Bombaz2005 was denied his rightful winnings of the auction, as according to ANDREASP15 v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2024] DCR 5, once a bid is declared with certain information, that information is implied in the rest of the bids of that person. This means that, when implying the bid money was coming from the plaintiff’s bank account in the auction, it would carry over to the rest of the bids on the auction.

The defense’s argument boils down to the fact that it has to be stated that money would be coming from a bank account. While it absolutely says that, it doesn’t state that it has to be included in every message, just that it has to be stated somewhere. This follows and supports the precedent cited that if a bid is declared with certain information, that information carries on.

The plaintiff rests their case and thanks the defense for their help to us through their opening statement.
 
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Closing Statement

Bombaz did bid $15500 but this bid did not follow the rules of the auction. The rules clearly state in Exhibit D that if the money is coming from an alternate account (bank, company, other form) then the player must state the source of the funds. Because of this rule when a bid doesnt include this information it is assumed that the money is coming from their personal account.

The Plaintiff uses Andreasp15 v. the Commonwealth of Redmont [2024] DCR 5 as precedent for their arguements but that case and this case is much different. In Andrea's case he bid 8k then bid 9. Any sane person wouldnt bid $8000 then bid $9 so it was reasonably assumed they meant 9k. In this case when one bid says bank and another doesnt a reasonable person could believe the money had been transfered into their personal account.

The reason it would be assumed they meant personal account is by biding with their bank account once then not stating where the money was coming from could give them an unfair advantage. They could argue they are now biding with their personal account and not their bank account or vice versa like this case. This gives the bidder the unfair advantage by arguably bidding with 2 accounts at the same time while everyone else is bidding with one.

Finally the commonwealth can not be held liable because we weren't lenient enough with our rules. It clearly states you must include any alternate account. The DCT upheld this rule and it is not the DCT's fault for the plaintiffs ignoring this rule for the second half of the auction. The commonwealth upheld the rules for the auctions plain and simple.
 

Verdict


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
VERDICT
Bombaz2005 v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2024] FCR 78

I. PLAINTIFF'S POSITION
1. On the 17th of May, av-y012, was listed for auction and the plaintiff was a bidder.
2. The plaintiff placed a bid of $12,500 and stated that the funds would be coming from their bank account.
3. The plaintiff immediately followed with a bid of $15,500 after Starlight0661 placed a bid for $15,000.
4. The plaintiff argues that according to DCT policy, the source of funds only needs to be stated once.
5. The plaintiff uses the precedent established in [2024] DCR 5, drawing on the interpretation of the suffix carrying for future bids.
6. The plaintiff claims that the DCT’s interpretation of policy has caused them inconvenience and seeks $30,500 in legal fees and damages.

II. DEFENDANT'S POSITION
1. Bombaz placed a bid of $15,500, but this bid did not follow the auction rules as it did not state the source of the funds.
2. The defendant argues that without stating the source of funds for each bid, it is assumed that the money is coming from the bidder’s personal account.
3. The defendant asserts that allowing a bid without stating the source of funds gives an unfair advantage and that the DCT upheld the auction rules correctly.
4. The defendant disputes the applicability of [2024] DCR 5, arguing the cases are different and the precedent does not apply.
5. The defendant maintains that the plaintiff has failed to follow the auction rules.

III. THE COURT OPINION
I was almost willing to accept the argument that [2024] DCR 5 applied here under common law, but upon further review and as a higher court I am inclined to not be bound by this precedent.

This case came down to simple contract law.

An auction is an offer - a proposal for contract formation - and a new offer constitutes a new contract proposal.

The DCT sets out clear guidance that each bid needs to be unambiguous. While common sense may prevail in making an assumption, assumptions cannot be made in contract formation. This is why the DCT have stringent rules which appear to have been enforced stringently.

IV. DECISION
The Federal Court of Redmont hereby rules in favour of the Defendant.

The Federal Court thanks all involved.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top