Lawsuit: Adjourned Boomsides and Pepecuu v. Lucaa7377 [2025] FCR 10

[ColonelKai]

The plaintiff has follow-up questions for the witness, and would like to continue questioning.

My apologies, continue. Same time limits apply.

Your honour, Boomsides has been on a leave of absence from Dragon Law and has been unreponsive to messages since the 9th of February. While I cannot know his situation, it may be reasonable to believe that he has some outside real-life obligations preventing him from appearing before court.

I will need to hear from them before the end of the case.

 

[Kaiserin_]

My apologies, continue. Same time limits apply.

Thank you, your honour.

Ms. Pepecuu,
5. Before the premature buyout, did you have any intention of backing down from the auction?
6. You mentioned that land is scarce right now. To what extent did this premature buyout prevent you from being able to start up the shop that you were intending to make?
7. How did the auctioneer's behavior come off to you during the whole fiasco?

 

[Pepecuu]

Thank you, your honor.

Ms. Pepecuu,
5. Before the premature buyout, did you have any intention of backing down from the auction?
6. You mentioned that land is scarce right now. To what extent did this premature buyout prevent you from being able to start up the shop that you were intending to make?
7. How did the auctioneer's behavior come off to you during the whole fiasco?

5. I did not have an intent to back down from the auction before and up to the point of the premature buyout.
6. The premature buyout definitely did have a significant impact on my ability to set up a store, as I did not have a plot to set up my shop.
7. The auctioneer's behavior was erratic and unusual, as shown in the case filing and evidences provided.

 

[Kaiserin_]

No further questions from the plaintiff, your honour.

 

[ColonelKai]

The defendant has 48 hours to cross examine the witness, and the witness has 48 hours to answer the questions after their submission.

 

[zLost]

OBJECTION
Calls for a conclusion

2. Broadly speaking, how much more than your bid of $16,000 would you have been willing to spend on that plot?

This question assumes that the witness was already planning on buying the plot, and it also asks for an opinion, not a fact. Therefore, the Defense asks for the question and response from the witness to be struck.


OBJECTION
Ambiguous

"3. Was the experience of this auction very different from other real estate auctions you might have participated in?"

The question being asked is too broad, as every auction will inherently have a different experience in some regards. The bidders may bid different amounts, the bidders may have a different style of bidding, etc. The Plaintiff is not specific enough. Therefore, the Defense asks for the question and response from the witness to be struck.


OBJECTION
Narrative

The witness's response to Question 4 gives information not asked in the question, as they justify the reasons for feeling that way when the question has only asked how they felt, not why they have felt that way.


OBJECTION
Calls for a conclusion

Question 4 is asking for an opinion, not factual information. Therefore, the Defense asks for the question and response from the witness to be struck.


OBJECTION
Narrative/Hearsay

The witness's response to Question 7 gives unneeded information, as the witness is using information from the case and giving unnecessary information. The witness is supposed to testify, they should not need to cite anything from this case to testify.


OBJECTION
Relevance

In regards to Question 7, the witness's opinion on the Defendant's behavior is not relevant to this case.


OBJECTION
Assumes facts not in evidence/Leading Question

Question 6 states: "To what extent did this premature buyout prevent you from being able to start up the shop that you were intending to make?"

There has been no evidence so far to suggest that the Plaintiff actually intended to start up a shop. The question is also phrased in a way that would encourage the witness to state that they had intended to start up a shop due to the inclusion of the phrase "to what extent".

Note: I have used a different format for the objections then the one listed in court policy, to make it easier to file these objections.

 

[Kaiserin_]

OBJECTION
Calls for a conclusion


This question assumes that the witness was already planning on buying the plot, and it also asks for an opinion, not a fact. Therefore, the Defense asks for the question and response from the witness to be struck.


OBJECTION
Ambiguous

"3. Was the experience of this auction very different from other real estate auctions you might have participated in?"

The question being asked is too broad, as every auction will inherently have a different experience in some regards. The bidders may bid different amounts, the bidders may have a different style of bidding, etc. The Plaintiff is not specific enough. Therefore, the Defense asks for the question and response from the witness to be struck.


OBJECTION
Narrative

The witness's response to Question 4 gives information not asked in the question, as they justify the reasons for feeling that way when the question has only asked how they felt, not why they have felt that way.


OBJECTION
Calls for a conclusion

Question 4 is asking for an opinion, not factual information. Therefore, the Defense asks for the question and response from the witness to be struck.


OBJECTION
Narrative/Hearsay

The witness's response to Question 7 gives unneeded information, as the witness is using information from the case and giving unnecessary information. The witness is supposed to testify, they should not need to cite anything from this case to testify.


OBJECTION
Relevance

In regards to Question 7, the witness's opinion on the Defendant's behavior is not relevant to this case.


OBJECTION
Assumes facts not in evidence/Leading Question

Question 6 states: "To what extent did this premature buyout prevent you from being able to start up the shop that you were intending to make?"

There has been no evidence so far to suggest that the Plaintiff actually intended to start up a shop. The question is also phrased in a way that would encourage the witness to state that they had intended to start up a shop due to the inclusion of the phrase "to what extent".

Note: I have used a different format for the objections then the one listed in court policy, to make it easier to file these

Responses to Objections

Calls for a Conclusion
The evidence already established that the witness placed a bid on the plot. It goes without saying that she was willing to spend money on it. The Court has a vested interest in understanding the witness's valuation of the plot for the purpose of assessing damages.

Ambiguous
It goes without saying, given the facts of the case, that this auction was anomalous. This question seeks to establish the extent to which the anomaly in how this auction was held affected the personal bidding experience of the witness. The question asked was clear, and the witness appears to have had no difficulty in answering it.

Narrative
The witness was asked about her feelings. The reasoning for these feelings is directly related to the emotions the witness experienced, and thus is of value to the Court. Further, the witness's response is only one sentence long, and does not qualify as "lengthy" or exceptionally "detailed", as would be required for a narrative objection.

Calls for a Conclusion
Emotional distress is cited in the initial complaint as a justification for damages, and thus the witness's personal emotions are facts of the case.

Narrative/Hearsay
The witness is allowed to cite evidence that has been presented to the court, especially given that she appears in much of the evidence in question. There is no hearsay in this response, and 16 words certainly does not qualify as narrative.

Relevance
The presence or absence of remorse in the Defendant and the witness/plaintiff's personal experience in dealing with the Defendant are facts of this case. The witness's testimony as to the Defendant's behavior is incredibly relevant.

Assumes Facts Not in Evidence/Leading Question
The witness already testified in her response to Question 1 that she planned on setting up a shop in the plot in question. Question 6 serves to follow up on this response and provide the Court with details on exactly how obstructive the premature buyout was to the witness's ability to enact her plans. It goes without saying that an inability to buy land would prohibit one from setting up a shop - thus, the question of the exact extent was asked. Even if this assumption was incorrect, "none at all" is a perfectly valid answer to a question beginning with "to what extent".

 

[zLost]

Apologies for the late response, the Defence has no questions for the Plaintiff's witness.

 

[ColonelKai]

OBJECTION
Calls for a conclusion

This question assumes that the witness was already planning on buying the plot, and it also asks for an opinion, not a fact. Therefore, the Defense asks for the question and response from the witness to be struck.

The question is relevant, the argument that this is an assumption is irrelevant, and whatever amount they had been planning on spending is a relevant fact, not an opinion. Objection overruled.

OBJECTION
Ambiguous

"3. Was the experience of this auction very different from other real estate auctions you might have participated in?"

The question being asked is too broad, as every auction will inherently have a different experience in some regards. The bidders may bid different amounts, the bidders may have a different style of bidding, etc. The Plaintiff is not specific enough. Therefore, the Defense asks for the question and response from the witness to be struck.

While the question is at face value board indeed, looking at the context of the case, it is crystal clear what the question here is. Objection overruled.

OBJECTION
Narrative

The witness's response to Question 4 gives information not asked in the question, as they justify the reasons for feeling that way when the question has only asked how they felt, not why they have felt that way.

The answer of the witness is directly relevant to the question at hand, and it is not an excessively long narrative that spun off the question. Objection overruled.

OBJECTION
Calls for a conclusion

Question 4 is asking for an opinion, not factual information. Therefore, the Defense asks for the question and response from the witness to be struck.

As with the first objection, witnesses are allowed to be asked their emotional state, or their thoughts at the time as long as they are relevant to the case. If someone has had an opinion at the time of the events which a case revolves around, and it is relevant to the case itself in a way that the witness having that opinion at the time is factually important, that is not an opinion being asked for. That is a factual information being asked about the mental state and thoughts of that witness at the time. Objection overruled.

OBJECTION
Narrative/Hearsay

The witness's response to Question 7 gives unneeded information, as the witness is using information from the case and giving unnecessary information. The witness is supposed to testify, they should not need to cite anything from this case to testify.

Not only do neither of these objection forms match the justification, the witnesses are allowed to refer to evidence already in case that is publicly available, and they were a part of the evidence presented. This isnt information they had "needed to cite from this case". It saves us all time, and otherwise would be an unnecessary addition to the court. Objection overruled.

OBJECTION
Relevance

In regards to Question 7, the witness's opinion on the Defendant's behavior is not relevant to this case.

The intent of the defendant is relevant to the issue at hand. Building an overall case for the mental state, behaviour and possible justifications for their actions is a valid argument. Objection overruled.

OBJECTION
Assumes facts not in evidence/Leading Question

Question 6 states: "To what extent did this premature buyout prevent you from being able to start up the shop that you were intending to make?"

There has been no evidence so far to suggest that the Plaintiff actually intended to start up a shop. The question is also phrased in a way that would encourage the witness to state that they had intended to start up a shop due to the inclusion of the phrase "to what extent".

The plaintiff's answer is adequate. Objection overruled.

 

[ColonelKai]

The plaintiff has 72 hours for their closing statement.

 

[Boomsides]

Real-life obligations prevented me from being present for questioning, but I would like to continue pursuing this case.

 

[Kaiserin_]

Closing Statement

May it please the court,
Your honour, opposing counsel, witnesses, and other esteemed guests of the court, thank you for your time today. Throughout this trial, a number of arguments have come your way in defence of the defendant’s clearly outrageous and illegal behaviour. From technicalities, to “he’s really sorry”, these arguments have thoroughly failed to justify the flagrant misrepresentation and bad-faith dealing exhibited by the defendant in carrying out a public auction. Not only that, but witness testimony has showcased for the court the sheer extent to which this behaviour disrupted the normal economic functioning of those who participated in the auction, and has provided crucial context to understand just how objectionable the behaviour of the defendant has been.

Plaintiffs Boomsides and Pepecuu began bidding on the property auction that the defendant set up of their own will, with no intention of backing down from the auction. One plaintiff testified that the plot, an empty property, had a potential value of up to $50,000, given the scarcity of land and the plot’s location. Both plaintiffs placed valid and binding bids, but the defendant sold off the plot for a mere $23,000, less than half of what one plaintiff would likely have bought it for. With bids ongoing, the 24-hour window not yet having elapsed, and the initial bid message having listed no buyout price, this impromptu sellout represented a clear breach of the public contract that binds bidders and auctioneers on the part of the defendant. Not only this, but by lying about having not actually sold the plot and insinuating that the auction was still open before later revealing the truth, the defendant clearly misrepresented material facts while encouraging others to enter into contract with him.

Further, both plaintiffs’ earning capacity was materially harmed by the loss of the opportunity to purchase land in this scarce economy. One plaintiff testified that they had concrete plans to create a shopping center in the plot, an opportunity for earning that was thoroughly dashed by the premature cancellation of the auction. To this day, the plaintiff has been unable to secure land for this shopping center, and is likely to be unable to do so for quite some time. Another plaintiff stated that they had to temporarily pause their normal economic operations in order to secure funding to purchase the plot, and while this plaintiff was unable to testify due to unforeseen real-life circumstances, their statements should nonetheless be given heed.

As if that were not enough, the defendant’s behaviour during this whole fiasco showed a gross negligence for the law, and a disregard for public order that the court cannot justifiably leave unpunished. Between dismissive statements like “who cares enough” and “[this is a] completely legal crime”, the plaintiff’s testimony that the defendant’s behaviour was “erratic and unusual” can only be considered an understatement. Despite a formal warning from the Department of Commerce, the plaintiffs who were forced to deal with this erratic, bad-faith, and outrageous conduct in the context of a legally binding auction remain entirely uncompensated. Further, the defendant has been allowed to continue on without any material punishment or detriment for their egregious behaviour outside of what essentially amounts to being told “stop that”. After all of this, the plaintiffs are left “devastated and extremely disappointed” by the severe injustice wrought upon them, and turn to the courts for recourse.

To this end, the plaintiffs humbly request that the courts grant compensatory, consequential, and punitive relief in order to make up for the emotional loss and damage to earning capacity brought by the defendant’s actions, and to punish the defendant for their severe lack of judgement and blatant disregard for their duties to the public. Thank you.

 

[ColonelKai]

The defendant has 72 hours for their closing statement.

 

[juniperfig]

Greetings. I will be taking over as presiding officer for this case.

 

[zLost]

Your Honor, I ask for a 24 hour extension as I have an important exam the day after tomorrow. I apologize for such a late request, and for asking for an extension a 2nd time in this case.

 

[juniperfig]

Your Honor, I ask for a 24 hour extension as I have an important exam the day after tomorrow. I apologize for such a late request, and for asking for an extension a 2nd time in this case.

Granted. You may not receive further extensions in this case.

 

[zLost]

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - PERJURY

In the original filing of the lawsuit, the Plaintiff states:

The Plaintiffs were forced to pause their operations to participate in the auction, ensuring they had enough money to meet the bid amounts. This pause resulted in a loss of valuable time and potential revenue.

Note that the plural version of "Plaintiff" has been used, implying that both plaintiffs had to pause their operations to bid in the auction, according to the opposing counsel. The opposing counsel's closing statement has directly contradicted this statement, as they say:

One plaintiff testified that they had concrete plans to create a shopping center in the plot, an opportunity for earning that was thoroughly dashed by the premature cancellation of the auction....... Another plaintiff stated that they had to temporarily pause their normal economic operations in order to secure funding to purchase the plot, and while this plaintiff was unable to testify due to unforeseen real-life circumstances, their statements should nonetheless be given heed.

The opposing counsel has stated that only one Plaintiff had to pause their operations. Therefore, one of these statements is false, which constitutes Perjury. The opposing counsel has had adequate time to analyze the case and therefore there has to be intention to commit perjury, as precedented earlier in this case.

 

[zLost]

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - PERJURY

The opposing counsel has stated, in their closing statement:

To this day, the plaintiff has been unable to secure land for this shopping center, and is likely to be unable to do so for quite some time.

This is entirely false, with explicit proof to support this claim. In just a month following the incident of this lawsuit, Plaintiff 2 bought six commercial plots, with a majority of them being empty plots that would be suitable for a shopping center. Not only that, Plaintiff 2 has shown that they have funds amounting to over $1,000,000 by bidding that amount in an auction. There is no way that they are unable to afford a commercial plot. This statement has absolute evidence that proves it to be entirely false, and therefore we ask that the court strikes this and charges the opposing counsel with perjury. The opposing counsel has direct communication with Plaintiff 2, and this case has been ongoing for more than 2 months. There is no excuse to make such an egregiously false statement.

Spoiler: PROOF OF PERJURY

 

[Kaiserin_]

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - PERJURY

In the original filing of the lawsuit, the Plaintiff states:

The Plaintiffs were forced to pause their operations to participate in the auction, ensuring they had enough money to meet the bid amounts. This pause resulted in a loss of valuable time and potential revenue.

Note that the plural version of "Plaintiff" has been used, implying that both plaintiffs had to pause their operations to bid in the auction, according to the opposing counsel. The opposing counsel's closing statement has directly contradicted this statement, as they say:

One plaintiff testified that they had concrete plans to create a shopping center in the plot, an opportunity for earning that was thoroughly dashed by the premature cancellation of the auction....... Another plaintiff stated that they had to temporarily pause their normal economic operations in order to secure funding to purchase the plot, and while this plaintiff was unable to testify due to unforeseen real-life circumstances, their statements should nonetheless be given heed.

The opposing counsel has stated that only one Plaintiff had to pause their operations. Therefore, one of these statements is false, which constitutes Perjury. The opposing counsel has had adequate time to analyze the case and therefore there has to be intention to commit perjury, as precedented earlier in this case.

The closing statement submitted by the plaintiff does not contradict the original filing. Saying "one plaintiff had to pause their operations" is not mutually exclusive with "both plaintiffs paused their operations", and it is my understanding that "The Plaintiffs" in the original filing refers to both plaintiffs as a group, and thus an action taken by one plaintiff is an action taken by "The Plaintiffs". Further, it was already clarified in the initial case filing that "Plaintiff 1 was forced to pause all operations to reserve the necessary funds in case they were the winning bidder." If there was any controversy over this technicality, it should have been raised in the initial case filing, not during closing statements.

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - PERJURY

The opposing counsel has stated, in their closing statement:

To this day, the plaintiff has been unable to secure land for this shopping center, and is likely to be unable to do so for quite some time.

This is entirely false, with explicit proof to support this claim. In just a month following the incident of this lawsuit, Plaintiff 2 bought six commercial plots, with a majority of them being empty plots that would be suitable for a shopping center. Not only that, Plaintiff 2 has shown that they have funds amounting to over $1,000,000 by bidding that amount in an auction. There is no way that they are unable to afford a commercial plot. This statement has absolute evidence that proves it to be entirely false, and therefore we ask that the court strikes this and charges the opposing counsel with perjury. The opposing counsel has direct communication with Plaintiff 2, and this case has been ongoing for more than 2 months. There is no excuse to make such an egregiously false statement.

Spoiler: PROOF OF PERJURY

View attachment 53642View attachment 53643View attachment 53647View attachment 53648View attachment 53649

Plaintiff Pepecuu testified that "The premature buyout definitely did have a significant impact on my ability to set up a store, as I did not have a plot to set up my shop." The plaintiff's counsel interpreted this to mean that land had still not been secured for this shop, and it is not for the counsel to question the validity of their own witness's statements. While the defence has provided compelling evidence to contradict this interpretation of the plaintiff's testimony, this discrepancy appears to be the result of mere miscommunication, and was not an intentional lie, as would be required of a perjury charge. The plaintiff consents to the striking of the statement in question for the sake of clarity, and apologizes for the miscommunication.

 

[zLost]

Closing Statement

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CLOSING STATEMENT

Throughout this case, the Plaintiff has chosen to disregard and not address multiple of the arguments given by the Defence, such as Plaintiff 1 being heavily impaired during the time of alleged damages, Plaintiff 2 most likely not even being online when the auction began and when the alleged damages, the consequences of the warning given by the DOC, and much more. The Plaintiff has once again stated that the DOC's warning is a simple "stop that", but as stated in the opening statements, it is very obviously not just that. It is not a verbal warning but an official warning that brings the Defendant one step closer to being banned from auctions. The Plaintiff has also stated that the contract being void due to the DOC annulling the contract is a technicality, however this is obviously untrue. The Contracts Act intends to allow the contracts to be void if the terms give a condition for it and that condition is fulfilled. The DOC, acting as the facilitator and following the terms of the contract, voided the contract removing the responsibility of the Defendant to continue the auction.

There has been zero pecuniary damages for compensatory damages as required by the Legal Damages Act (link), with the only sort of actual evidence so far being a testimony by the Plaintiff, with the possibility of a preconceived notion or bias due to their involvement in the case. Plaintiff 1 most likely did not suffer any damages as argued in the opening statement, and Plaintiff 2 was likely to not even have been online during the time of the auction. Not only that, the DOC closed the auction before 24 hours had passed since the auction started, therefore none of the Plaintiffs would've even won the auction had the DOC not annulled the auction.

The Plaintiff's remorse is very relevant to this case, as punitive damages require outrageous conduct. The Plaintiff's regret for their actions shows that they did not intend to cause any damages to the Plaintiffs, and that they were only trying to diffuse the situation.

In regards to Compensatory Damages, the Legal Damages Act (link) allows judicial officers to determine if they should be paid out based on a standard of probabilities. Your Honor, I ask you how likely it is that an ordeal which lasted less than 24 hours emotionally affected the Plaintiffs enough to justify $15,000 in damages per Plaintiff. Plaintiff 2 appeared to have recovered in a short time following this situation, while Plaintiff 1 has shown a decrease in activity following the auction, showing that they would not have been affected much had they lost or won the auction. Not only that, damages for "emotional distress" as requested by the opposing counsel in consequential damages are not a part of them as stated in the Legal Damages Act (link).

 

[juniperfig]

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - PERJURY

In the original filing of the lawsuit, the Plaintiff states:

The Plaintiffs were forced to pause their operations to participate in the auction, ensuring they had enough money to meet the bid amounts. This pause resulted in a loss of valuable time and potential revenue.

Note that the plural version of "Plaintiff" has been used, implying that both plaintiffs had to pause their operations to bid in the auction, according to the opposing counsel. The opposing counsel's closing statement has directly contradicted this statement, as they say:

One plaintiff testified that they had concrete plans to create a shopping center in the plot, an opportunity for earning that was thoroughly dashed by the premature cancellation of the auction....... Another plaintiff stated that they had to temporarily pause their normal economic operations in order to secure funding to purchase the plot, and while this plaintiff was unable to testify due to unforeseen real-life circumstances, their statements should nonetheless be given heed.

The opposing counsel has stated that only one Plaintiff had to pause their operations. Therefore, one of these statements is false, which constitutes Perjury. The opposing counsel has had adequate time to analyze the case and therefore there has to be intention to commit perjury, as precedented earlier in this case.

Overruled. Intent to perjure has not been proven, and the statement in question, while somewhat confusing, is not actually false, but instead strange phrasing as a result of filing a joint lawsuit.

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - PERJURY

The opposing counsel has stated, in their closing statement:

To this day, the plaintiff has been unable to secure land for this shopping center, and is likely to be unable to do so for quite some time.

This is entirely false, with explicit proof to support this claim. In just a month following the incident of this lawsuit, Plaintiff 2 bought six commercial plots, with a majority of them being empty plots that would be suitable for a shopping center. Not only that, Plaintiff 2 has shown that they have funds amounting to over $1,000,000 by bidding that amount in an auction. There is no way that they are unable to afford a commercial plot. This statement has absolute evidence that proves it to be entirely false, and therefore we ask that the court strikes this and charges the opposing counsel with perjury. The opposing counsel has direct communication with Plaintiff 2, and this case has been ongoing for more than 2 months. There is no excuse to make such an egregiously false statement.

Overruled. Intent to perjure has not been proven.
It is entirely possible that both "the Plaintiff has been unable to secure land for this shopping center" and "the Plaintiff has purchased six commercial plots in the past month" are both valid statements. However, considering a balance of probabilities, it is exceedingly likely that at least one of the six properties purchased by the Plaintiff could be used as a shopping center, and I am comfortable enough in this assessment to agree that the statement is false.
However, perjury requires intent. There is no evidence that the Plaintiff's counsel was aware of these six purchases and certainly no evidence that the Plaintiff's counsel intentionally lied or misrepresented facts to the court.

The statement in question shall be struck by request of both the Plaintiff and Defence.

With that, the court will hereby enter recess pending verdict.

 

[juniperfig]

Verdict

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
VERDICT
Boomsides and Pepecuu v. Lucaa7377 [2025] FCR 10

I. PLAINTIFF'S POSITION
1. The Defendant illegally canceled the ongoing auction mid-process, violating the Real Estate Guidelines and the Contracts Act by failing to complete the 24-hour bidding window and selling directly to a third party.
2. The Defendant thereby breached his contractual obligations by denying the Plaintiffs the chance to continue participating in an active, legally regulated auction.
3. By encouraging further bids while simultaneously completing a private sale, the Defendant engaged in misrepresentation, inducing the Plaintiffs to remain in (or re-enter) a contract under false pretenses.
4. The Defendant’s dismissive and mocking comments (e.g., “Who cares enough?”) and subsequent lies about the property’s status constitute a violation of the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing.
5. The Plaintiffs argue they suffered financial and emotional harm due to pausing business operations in anticipation of the auction’s outcome—interrupting their earnings to secure funds—and ultimately lost the property.

II. DEFENDANT'S POSITION
1. The Defence argues that the Plaintiffs have not shown concrete evidence of any compensatory damages—such as verifiable financial loss or genuinely “paused operations”—especially given how quickly events transpired.
2. The Defendant contends that the Department of Commerce (DOC) formally canceled the auction before the 24 hour timeline had elapsed for a winning bid, meaning the contract was effectively voided before a breach could be fully realized. Consequently, the Defendant believes there was no actionable violation once the DOC intervened.
3. The Defendant asserts that, once made aware of the auction violation, they showed remorse and did not intend to act maliciously. Confusion over whether a direct sale was permissible was partly due to misinformation from a third party.
4. The Defence contends that punitive damages are unwarranted because the Defendant’s behavior, while arguably a mistake, was not so egregious as to justify extra penalties—particularly given the official warning already issued by the DOC.
5. The Defence emphasizes that this incident took place over a very brief period, challenging the Plaintiffs’ claims of extensive disruption or significant emotional harm.

III. THE COURT OPINION
The Plaintiff’s legal basis for their claims all fall under the Contracts Act. Therefore, I must determine if the Defendant was contractually bound to the plaintiffs.

Were the bids a legally binding contract? No.
Precedent states that winning bids are legally binding contracts (Ansgard_Ist v. MelisaMinecrft74 [2022] FCR 11, FlyingBlocks v. dodrio3 [2023] DCR 1).
Neither Plaintiff’s bid ever “won” here, because the DOC canceled the auction before it could conclude. Furthermore, awarding damages for a breach of contract to two individuals who were actively bidding against each other would be illogical—only one of them could have ended up with a valid contract, had it been formed. Treating these in-progress bids as legally binding contracts would also undermine the DOC’s explicit right to terminate an auction at any time for any reason.

Are citizens contractually obligated to uphold the DOC’s Real Estate Guidelines? No.
I cannot confidently conclude that the DOC’s Real Estate Guidelines form a legally binding contract. While posting in the real estate guidelines thread might satisfy offer, acceptance, consideration, and capacity on paper, the element of intent cannot be proven. There is no evidence the Defendant knew about these guidelines, no warning is given before making a post, and I personally found it quite difficult to locate them myself. Guidelines that are essentially hidden should not be presumed legally binding.
That said, citizens can still face consequences for ignoring the Real Estate Guidelines—just not under contract law. It is a procedural violation rather than a contractual breach. The DOC can (and did) punish citizens for breaching their guidelines. That does not, however, transform these guidelines into an enforceable contract.

Because there was no contractual obligation between the Defendant and the Plaintiffs, I cannot award punitive damages for misrepresentation, breach of contract, or breach of good faith and fair dealing.
I also concur with the Defence that there is no solid evidence of pecuniary loss. Nothing was submitted to substantiate the proposed future earnings from a shopping center or any alleged losses from pausing operations. General assurances are insufficient to demonstrate actual financial harm.

Similarly, while emotional distress may be troubling, it is not, by itself, grounds for damages. The court would require proof of genuine psychological harm—frustration or disappointment alone do not rise to a compensable threshold.

Finally, since the DOC has already warned the Defendant, there is no need for a formal court order requiring adherence to auction procedures. The DOC’s established authority and prior actions are sufficient.

IV. DECISION
I hereby rule in favour of the Defence, and grant no Prayers for Relief.

The Federal Court thanks all involved.