Lawsuit: Adjourned CrackedAmoeba v. Incompleteriver [2024] FCR 37

[PoetRini]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


CrackedAmoeba
Plaintiff

v.

IncompleteRiver
Defendant

COMPLAINT
In july 2023 our client and incompleteriver came to an agreement. They agreed that in exchange for $10,000 Incomplete river would install casino machines into amoeba towers. The casino was a prominent feature of amoeba towers design and was promised in the advertisements of the towers.

After paying incompleteriver $10000, for five months our client had begged and pleaded with him to install the machines as agreed upon in the original agreement however incompleteriver failed to deliver on his side of the agreement. After refusing to complete the project as promised my client demanded their money back, Incompleteriver refused.

Not having these casino machines affected my clients standing with both their current renters and future possible renters, as they were not able to deliver on a promise made directly from the agreement with incompleteriver. The loss of renters would lead to a loss of money for my client. The prospect of the agreement also held our client back from finding new partnerships to get the machine built. The loss of the 10k also incurred opportunity loss.


I. PARTIES
1. CrackedAmoeba (Lovely Law representing)
2. Incompleteriver

II. FACTS
1. Incomplete River agreed to install casino machines in amoeba towers in exchange for $10,000
2. This agreement accounts for every part required of the foundation of contract law act and therefore constitutes as a contract.
3. For five months incompleteriver failed to uphold his end of the deal and did not install casino machines in amoeba towers
4. After our client requested a refund for incompletriver not upholding his end of the deal. Incompleterive refused to pay back the $10,000.
5. The failure for incompleteriver to uphold his end of the deal violates the contract that was made.


III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. By refusing to complete his end of the deal Incompleteriver violated his contract with Cracked Amoeba.
2. By violating his agreement cracked amoeba was unable to uphold one of the key promises of amoeba towers which affected his standing with his clientele and renters. This led to customers not renting out spaces in amoeba towers.
3. By withholding the $10,000 Incompleteriver prevented my client from capitalizing on the money for 5 whole months.
4. By not following through on his deal as well as not returning the original money Incompleteriver created an outrageous circumstance where my client was denied his money back and his product. This is equivalent to scam which would be outrageous conduct

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. $10,000 back from not completing the original agreement
2. $12,600 due to incompletriver’s incomplete work affecting the rentability of amoeba towers
3. $1400 in opportunity costs
4 .$25,000 in punitive damages

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 31th day of January 2024

 

[Snowy_Heart]

 

[Snowy_Heart]

Your Honor,
Cases posted after this case have been summoned, it's been 20 days. This is a breach of my clients right to a speedy trial.

 

[Nacho]

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

The Defendant is required to appear before the court in the case of the CrackedAmoeba v. Incompleteriver [2024] FCR 37. 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.​

 

[Nacho]

The Defendant is hereby charged with contempt for failing to appear before the court.

The court will be in recess while we enter into a default judgment.

 

[Nacho]

Verdict

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
VERDICT
CrackedAmoeba v. Incompleteriver [2024] FCR 37

I. PLAINTIFF'S POSITION
1. The Defendant failed to follow through on an agreement between the plaintiff and defendant.
2. The Defendant's lack of follow-through on the agreement has led to an opportunity loss.

II. DEFENDANT'S POSITION
1. Failed to appear before the court.

III. THE COURT OPINION
The Court believes that due to the nature of the allegations, it would not be proper to pass judgment based on the lack thereof of evidence provided to the court. It is apparent that the case is also a potential cash grab being filed against an inactive community member. Being inactive is not an excuse or a reason not to follow through on potential agreements with other parties. However, at this time, the argument being presented to the court is that they should have followed through on an agreement between the two parties.

When reviewing damages within default judgments, the presiding judge is left to review the facts of the case and any supporting evidence submitted to the court at the time of the initial filing. In this case, it is challenging due to the nature of the filing. The filing itself is vague and provides basic accusations against the defendant. However, there is no supporting evidence to support the allegations. I've broken down each of the damages listed and provided a justified ruling based on the facts of the case, including the evidence provided within the filing.

1. $10,000 back from not completing the original agreement
While there is potentially an agreement, the Plaintiff failed to submit supporting evidence to provide proof of the original agreement. While the plaintiff can claim they intended to submit it within Discovery, it is fundamentally improper to claim due to the agreement being made is optional to be newly discovered evidence.

2. $12,600 due to incompletriver’s incomplete work affecting the rentability of amoeba towers
While this is further a potential issue stemming from the lack thereof, in this instance, the burden of proof falls to the Plaintiff to prove the lack of work did, in fact, affect the rentability of Amoeba Towers. While directly, there are also further variables that need to be considered when reviewing the rentability. The action of not creating a casino machine does not prevent people from renting and lowers the likelihood of people renting.

3. $1400 in opportunity costs
The court further stipulates there to be a lack of supporting evidence supplied to the court within the initial filing of the case to provide a justified awarding of this damage to the plaintiff.

4. $25,000 in punitive damages
While the plaintiff was accused at the time, and I'm sure the plaintiff would have presented to the court how the actions were outrageous, the plaintiff has failed. As previously mentioned in point 1 of the court opinion, no supporting evidence was provided at this time.


IV. DECISION
The court hereby rules in favor of the plaintiff.

The Court will not award any of the prayers to the plaintiff due to the lack of supporting evidence submitted to the court.

The Federal Court thanks all involved.