Lawsuit: Adjourned Crxka v. NotGamerrr [2022] FCR 86

[KermieTheP0tat0]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

CIVIL ACTION



Crxka (Represented by Solid Law Firm)
Plaintiff

v.

NotGamerrr
Defendant


COMPLAINT

The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

Your honor,

On October 4, 2022, the Defendant entered into a contract with the Plaintiff concerning the construction of a building. As part of the contract, the Defendant agreed to pay for the construction by October 19, 2022. The Defendant breached the contract and did not pay the Plaintiff.


I. PARTIES

1. Crxka
2. NotGamerrr


II. FACTS

1. The Defendant entered a contract with the Plaintiff, in which the Defendant agreed to pay $11,000 for the construction of a building.

2. The contract stated that the Defendant would “have 15 days as of 10/04/2022 est time to pay”. The 15 days ended at 11:59pm EST on October 19, 2022.

3. On October 5, 2022, the Defendant admitted the existence of the building in a mail message delivered to the Plaintiff.

4. As of the time of this filing, the Defendant has not paid the Plaintiff the agreed amount.


III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

1. The Defendant entered a legally binding contract with the Plaintiff, including a statement explaining that $11,000 was the amount to be paid by October 19, 2022.


IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

1. $11,000 for breach of contract.

2. $500 in legal fees.


Evidence:

1. Exhibit A. These are screenshots of the contract and the Defendant agreeing to its terms.

2. Exhibit B. Screenshot of mail message where the Defendant admits to there being a build that he calls “too basic”.

Proof of Consent to Represent:

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 20 day of October 2022

 

[dygyee]

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 Crxka v. NotGamerrr [2022] FCR 86. Failure to appear within 48 hours of this summons will result in a default judgment in favor 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.​

 

[dygyee]

Before I write a default judgement, can you send proof of the building? You have 48 hours to do so, or state that you have no proof of the building.

 

[dygyee]

Your honor, the proof is in exhibit B that clearly shows that I built it. (sorry for the wrong formatting I am on my phone)

I would like to see proof of the building if possible.

 

[KermieTheP0tat0]

Your honor, sorry for the delay.

It has come to our attention that the building has since been removed by the Defendant. We hope that exhibit B will be sufficient evidence that a building existed.

 

[Dartanboy]

Good evening, your honor.

As the CEO of Solid Law Firm I clearly have an interest in the outcome of this case, and request to file an Amicus Brief further explaining the nature of this case, as the Case Filing is only designed to establish the facts of the case, and not put forth significant arguments towards the verdict of this case.

I believe I have information that would further prove the necessity that this case be ruled in favor of the Plaintiff, even without a screenshot of the building itself.

Thank you.

 

[dygyee]

Good evening, your honor.

As the CEO of Solid Law Firm I clearly have an interest in the outcome of this case, and request to file an Amicus Brief further explaining the nature of this case, as the Case Filing is only designed to establish the facts of the case, and not put forth significant arguments towards the verdict of this case.

I believe I have information that would further prove the necessity that this case be ruled in favor of the Plaintiff, even without a screenshot of the building itself.

Thank you.

Since you are the CEO of the Law Firm that the Plaintiff has chosen to represent them, you may post a statement regarding the case (Similar to an opening or closing statement). You have 48 hours to do so.

 

[Dartanboy]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
"OPENING" STATEMENT / AMICUS BRIEF / What every you may wish to call this

Good evening, your honor.

While we do not have proof that a building was completed, there are two major reasons this case should still be ruled in favor of the Plaintiff.

1. According to the Judicial Standards Act (Act of Congress - Judicial Standards Act), in a Civil Action, such as this case, the burden of proof is simply a Balance of Probabilities -- not Proof Beyond a Reasonable Doubt. Thus, if it is shown that it is more likely that the building was built, the Balance of Probabilities has been met.

Given that the Defendant reached out to the Plaintiff and called the building "too basic," it is extremely probable that a building was, in fact, constructed, it is clear that it is more than likely that the building was built, even if the Defendant did not like it.

2. The contract that was signed gives a deadline for payment, but does not give a deadline for construction. So, even if it was found that Crxka did not start construction yet (although they did), Crxka would not be found in Breach of Contract, but the Defendant still would be, as they did not pay by the agreed-upon deadline.

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 24th day of October 2022

 

[dygyee]

Verdict

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
VERDICT
Crxka v. NotGamerr [2022] FCR 86

I. PLAINTIFF'S POSITION
1. The Defendant hired the Plaintiff to build a building for the price of $11,000.
2. The Plaintiff built the building, but was never paid by the Defendant

II. DEFENDANT'S POSITION
1. The Defendant failed to appear before the court.
2. However the Defendant stated in the evidence, that the building was "too basic" which was not what he wanted or imagined when he signed the contract.

III. THE COURT OPINION
1. Ultimately there is a contract, and whether or not the Defendant liked the building he is required to pay, assuming the Plaintiff held up their end of the contract.
2. The main question is did the Plaintiff hold up their end of the contract?
3. While the Defendant did acknowledge that a building was built, it is still the job of the Plaintiff to build the building with intent to make it look nice, and to meet the Defendant's goals. For example if the Plaintiff build a cube out of 1 material, while technically they are meeting everything in the contract, they knew or should have known that the Defendant did not want that. In that case, the Defendant wouldn't be responsible to pay the Plaintiff.
4.Furthermore even if there is no time limit given, it is expected to be done within a reasonable amount of time. One cannot keep saying "it will be completed later" and never complete what was supposed to be completed.
5. Lastly, although the burden of proof in a civil case is was it more likely to have happened than not, it is still up to the Plaintiff to use evidence to pass this burden of proof, and the court cannot take the word of either side assuming there isn't enough evidence.

IV. DECISION
1. While the court thinks that the Plaintiff has proved more likely than not that they did build a building for the Defendant, they failed to pass the burden of proof to show that the building was built with care, and intent to make it look nice for the Defendant. As far as the court knows, the Defendant could have build a cobblestone hut as the building.
2. Since the Plaintiff held up their end of the contract, and completed the building, they are entitled to some of the money in the contract, however since they failed to prove more likely than not, that the building was built to meet the Defendant's goals, or look nice at all, they aren't entitled to all of the money stated in the contract.
3. I hereby rule in favor of the Plaintiff and order the DOJ to fine the NotGamerrr $5,500 and unfine Crxka the same amount.
4. Let this be a lesson to both parties in the future. For the Plaintiff: You must pass the burden of proof in the court, so make sure to gather evidence such as photos of the building. And for the Defendant: If the building wasn't what you wanted, state more clearly in your contract what you do want, and be specific.
5. I also hereby charge Crxka with 1 charge of contempt of court for posting 3 duplicate messages (which also didn't answer the question that was being asked), and order the DOJ to fine/jail him appropriately.

The Federal Court thanks all involved.