Lawsuit: Adjourned Dimitre977 v. kesballo [2025] FCR 6

[Superbiebel]

Case Filing

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION
Dimitre977 (represented by Solid Law)
Plaintiff

v.

kesballo
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

On the 14th of December at 3:07 PM EST, the Defendant agreed to a contract to rent a golden drill from my client for $200 per hour(P-01 and P-05). Staff logs show Kesballo started the rental period by “buying” the drill from the employee-only chestshop later that day (P-03) and since then has failed to return the drill to the Plaintiff despite a multitude of reminders (P-01 and P-04). The Defendant has also failed to pay the plaintiff the rental fees breaching the signed contract, even after being threatened with possible court action, causing great financial loss for the Plaintiff (P-01) since he can’t rent the drill out to someone else. It is not possible that the defendant hasn’t seen the messages or warnings yet, given it has been over 3 weeks since the contract was signed with the Plaintiff (P-01). The reason why this case wasn’t filed earlier, is because of technical issues with the chestshop logs. These logs could not be retrieved by the plaintiff, but had to be retrieved by staff.

I. PARTIES
1. Dimitre977 (represented by Solid Law)
2. kesballo

II. FACTS

1. Kesballo entered a rental contract with Dimitre977 for a golden drill at a pricing of $200 per hour active or inactive
2. Kesballo took a golden drill from Dimitre977
3. Kesballo failed to pay the rental price for the drill
4. Kesballo was warned by Dimitre977 to pay and return the drill
5. Kesballo failed to return the drill to Dimitre977

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

1. By failing to pay the rental price Kesballo breached a signed contract as governed by the Contracts Act

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. $200 per hour compensatory damages from the beginning of the rental period, currently at least $138,000 (rounded down, 690 hours), until the compensatory damages for the drill are paid or the drill is given back.
2. $50,000 in punitive damages for the lack of communication and outrageous conduct
3. $20,000 in compensatory damages for the price of the drill
4. Currently $62,400 in legal fees, representing 30% of the case value, which will increase as the compensatory damages are increasing.

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 6th day of January 2025

P-01 DM screenshots between kesballo and Dimitre977 containing rental contract signing
P-02 the golden drill chestshop
P-03 Proof Kesballo having the Golden Drill
P-04 Staff logs showing the Drill wasn’t returned
P-05 The rental contract

 

[Dr_Eksplosive]

Writ of Summons

@kesballo is required to appear before the Federal Court in the case of Plaintiff v. Defendant.

Failure to appear within 72 hours of this summons will result in a default judgement based on the known facts of the case.

Both parties should make themselves aware of the Court Rules and Procedures, including the option of an in-game trial should both parties request one.

 

[Superbiebel]

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF REDMONT
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGEMENT

The defendant hasn't shown up. The plaintiff would like to request a verdict based on the known facts of the case.

 

[Dr_Eksplosive]

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF REDMONT
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGEMENT

The defendant hasn't shown up. The plaintiff would like to request a verdict based on the known facts of the case.

Granted.

Court is adjourned pending summary judgement.

 

[Matthew100x]

As a heads-up, I have been asked by Dr_Ekplosive to handle this case.

 

[Matthew100x]

Due to current court policy. I cannot grant a motion for summary judgment because summary judgment is acting in place of a default judgment. Presently, if there is a default judgment, we must call a public defender (see Information - Public Defence Policy). I must hold off on granting judgment at this moment.

 

[Babysoga4real]

Your Honor,
I am present as the Public Defender.

 

[Matthew100x]

Per Court Procedures, we shall now have 72 hours of Discovery. (see Information - Court Rules and Procedures). @Babysoga4real please try to get in contact with the defendant of this case.

 

[Superbiebel]

Your Honor,

The plaintiff and defense would respectfully like to request a freeze of this case including all deadlines. We are currently working out a settlement to save the Courts and both parties time and resources. We will report back shortly on this settlement.

 

[Babysoga4real]

Your Honor,

The plaintiff and defense would respectfully like to request a freeze of this case including all deadlines. We are currently working out a settlement to save the Courts and both parties time and resources. We will report back shortly on this settlement.

Your Honor,
As the Defence we fully affirm this current talks are commencing momentarily.

 

[Matthew100x]

I will grant a 48 hour extension of discovery to allow for settlement discussion.

 

[Superbiebel]

Your honor,

Both parties have come to an agreement regarding the settlement(see below for the full settlement). Since it is unlikely that the defendant will return, and their balance is very low, it is extremely unlikely that the amount agreed will be paid. To force payment, the Debt Recovery Act would have to be used. This act requires a verdict to fine payment, which this settlement wouldn't be.

Therefore both parties would like to request that the Court uses its judicial power according to section 13 of the constitution, to declare this settlement a verdict. This would avoid the wasting of time and resources by all parties including the Court, and would greatly speed up the payment of the compensatory damages, which are increasing every hour. Both parties believe this is more beneficial then a drawn out court case.

 

[Babysoga4real]

Your honor,

Both parties have come to an agreement regarding the settlement(see below for the full settlement). Since it is unlikely that the defendant will return, and their balance is very low, it is extremely unlikely that the amount agreed will be paid. To force payment, the Debt Recovery Act would have to be used. This act requires a verdict to fine payment, which this settlement wouldn't be.

Therefore both parties would like to request that the Court uses its judicial power according to section 13 of the constitution, to declare this settlement a verdict. This would avoid the wasting of time and resources by all parties including the Court, and would greatly speed up the payment of the compensatory damages, which are increasing every hour. Both parties believe this is more beneficial then a drawn out court case.

Your Honor,
As the Defendants Lawyer and Public Defender I believe this is the best for both parties and would like to affirm what Omegabiebel said.

 

[Matthew100x]

Your honor,

Both parties have come to an agreement regarding the settlement(see below for the full settlement). Since it is unlikely that the defendant will return, and their balance is very low, it is extremely unlikely that the amount agreed will be paid. To force payment, the Debt Recovery Act would have to be used. This act requires a verdict to fine payment, which this settlement wouldn't be.

Therefore both parties would like to request that the Court uses its judicial power according to section 13 of the constitution, to declare this settlement a verdict. This would avoid the wasting of time and resources by all parties including the Court, and would greatly speed up the payment of the compensatory damages, which are increasing every hour. Both parties believe this is more beneficial then a drawn out court case.

Counsels,

The settlement agreement is a contract between the plaintiff and defendant that ends litigation. We do not have a process for judicially backed settlement, otherwise known as a "Directed Settlement." From what I am seeing, both of you have made an agreement to a deal relating to this indignant defendant to have the government take his balance as payment of the drill. This deal requires a verdict so it can be taken to the DOJ (now the DHS because the departments have changed since this law was made) and so that money can be directly taken from his account. Can we please show-cause for this, why is this order needed from the court?

 

[Matthew100x]

@Babysoga4real

Were you able to get in contact with the defendant?

 

[Babysoga4real]

@Babysoga4real

Were you able to get in contact with the defendant?

Your Honor,
I wasn't I sent a half-dozen mails and on discord I sent a message request which was rejected as the Person has left DCs discord servers.

 

[Superbiebel]

Your Honor,

The plaintiff just wants their money, since this case has been dragging on for weeks. Both parties believe they got a fair deal and are not in dispute of the facts. It would save significant time to not have to litigate and wait for a verdict(which may take a long time knowing from experience, no offense but some cases have been waiting for a verdict for more than a month). The longer this case goes on the higher the damages become, which is also not in the interest of the defense.

The defendant has not been reachable all this time, despite numerous messages from both parties throughout the preceding weeks. Staff have understandably refused to retrieve the drill from Kesballo's inventory which would end the increase of the damages.

 

[Babysoga4real]

Your Honor,

The plaintiff just wants their money, since this case has been dragging on for weeks. Both parties believe they got a fair deal and are not in dispute of the facts. It would save significant time to not have to litigate and wait for a verdict(which may take a long time knowing from experience, no offense but some cases have been waiting for a verdict for more than a month). The longer this case goes on the higher the damages become, which is also not in the interest of the defense.

The defendant has not been reachable all this time, despite numerous messages from both parties throughout the preceding weeks. Staff have understandably refused to retrieve the drill from Kesballo's inventory which would end the increase of the damages.

We affirm this

 

[Matthew100x]

Verdict

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
VERDICT

Dimitre977 v. kesballo [2025] FCR 6

I. PLAINTIFF'S POSITION
1. Existence of a Contract – On December 14, 2024, at 3:07 PM EST, the Defendant agreed to rent a golden drill for $200 per hour, as evidenced by written communications and the rental contract (P-01, P-05).
2. The Defendant took possession of the golden drill via an employee-only chestshop (P-03) but has not returned it despite repeated warnings (P-01, P-04). Additionally, the Defendant has not paid any of the required rental fees, which continue to accrue.
3. The Plaintiff has suffered significant financial loss, as the ongoing non-payment and withholding of the drill prevent him from renting it to other clients. The outstanding rental fees currently amount to at least $138,000 and continue to grow.

II. DEFENDANT'S POSITION
1. A public defender was called. The public defender could not get in contact with the defendant and attempted to settle the case on his behalf.

III. THE COURT OPINION
This court will be entering a long-form verdict in this matter.

A contract is necessary to recover remedies in a breach of contract issue. (see Act of Congress - Contracts Act, Lawsuit: Dismissed - Dimitre997 v. zeos_exe [2022] FCR 66). If a contract is void, recovery cannot be collected. (see Lawsuit: Adjourned - Aezal v. Morgan Sheraton & Co. [2023] FCR 43). Existence of a purported contract has been entered into evidence (see P-001 in Plaintiff’s complaint). The terms of a contract are express when expressly stated or implied. (see 5(1) Act of Congress - Contracts Act). Yet, if the terms of a contract are not express, they can be implied through conduct. (see 5(2) Act of Congress - Contracts Act).


Under the current situation, the court cannot verify the existence of an expressed agreement. A contract that is void is one that is not legally binding. By logic, a contract that does not exist is not binding. The plaintiff argues that the damages allegedly come from the existence of a contract in P-001. We are unable to verify. Thus, the contract’s express terms can be ignored.

That said, it is clear that the defendant’s conduct implies some sort of contract. The plaintiff asserts as a matter of fact that the defendant entered into a rental agreement with the defendant that they will pay $200 dollars per hour for access to a Golden Drill. According to P-003, the defendant purchased a Golden Drill from Bluesteel Industries for $0 dollars from a chestshop. This purchase would indicate that the defendant was working in some sort of arrangement with the plaintiff to obtain the Golden Drill. Thus, we must review the situation as a contract under implied terms as plead in the complaint.

To begin with, a contract must have the following:
(a) Offer. An offer is a clear and unequivocal communication expressing a party's willingness to enter into a contract, either explicitly stated or reasonably inferred from the circumstances.
(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.
(c) Consideration. Consideration, an essential element, involves the exchange of something of value between parties, with sufficiency though not necessarily adequacy. Consideration can be tangible or intanglbie.
(d) Intent. Parties must demonstrate a clear intention to create legal obligations for the contract to be valid.
(e) Capacity. Parties entering into a contract must possess the legal capacity to do so. Players with low playtime may lack the capacity to fairly enter a contract.
(see 4(2) Act of Congress - Contracts Act).

The offer as alleged is an employee agreement. The defendant is to act as an employee and pay $200 dollars an hour in exchange for a drill. The offer is employment, consideration for plaintiff is monies and defendant’s consideration is employment + use of a golden drill. Acceptance was tendered. Defendant seems intent on creating legal obligations through their conduct of accepting the drill.

The outlier is capacity in this situation. The court has done an investigation sua sponte to review the defendant’s playtime and found that the defendant has a total of 4 hours and 32 minutes of playtime. This is far below the requirement necessary to vote in elections and referendums. (see 16(2) Act of Congress - Electoral Act). This is also below what would be considered legally active. (see Act of Congress - Activity Act).

While there is no definition for what is considered to be low playtime for the purposes of contracts, this court is going to set out a definition. A fair characterization would be a lack of playtime. Yet a lack of playtime may not necessarily mean that a player is not sufficiently able to conduct business. If a player has not accumulated enough playtime to be legally active on the server and were unable to have capacity, then businesses would be harmed. Such a decision must be narrowly tailored to focus on the issue at hand, which is whether a player with low playtime could have capacity to contract.

The law only states that the capacity may not be found if a player has low playtime. Thus, every decision on capacity must be made on a case-by-case basis. To prevent the harm of the stream of business, this should not affect sales by chestshop that are not influenced by a greater contract, whether express or implied, as it is in this case.

However, there is an element of new player protection that must be involved, that creating contracts that adversely impacts a newer player causes undue benefit to the contractor against the interests of the contractee. It must be noted that the creation of the Contracts Acts does remove Unfair Terms as a defense since it rescinds the Foundation of Contracts Act. (see 3(2) Act of Congress - Contracts Act). It is presently not against the Contracts Act to contract into a bad deal that adversely harms one party for the benefit of the other. Therefore, barring issues of constitutionality, the prior usage of unfair terms in and of themselves cannot be accounted for in the judicial decision making process at this present time.

With that said, the court must protect the interests of newer players. We note that this implied contract between the plaintiff and the defendant would cost the defendant $200 dollars per hour, regardless of whether they were online. Under the terms of the implied contract, a new player would lose their starting balance, or “new player’s wealth” in 6 hours. The starting balance is currently $1,200 dollars (See Discord - Group Chat That’s All Fun & Games, DemocracyCraft Wiki). The rule of New Player Fraud states that it is illegal to “To take advantage of a new player's wealth and or resources for another's profit or advantage.” (see New Player Fraud under 6 - Fraud Act of Congress - Commercial Standards Act). The defendant, as a player with only four and a half hours of playtime, is more likely than not to have money that is close to their starting balance. An investigation of the defendant sua sponte does reveal that they have $1,589.02 dollars, which is close to a new player’s starting balance. 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. Therefore, this court concludes that the defendant lacked the capacity to enter into this contract and thus the contract is void.

To sum up the rules to give meaning to this definition of legal capacity. This court holds that any new player who has not yet accumulated legally active playtime and enters into a contract that would harm their starting balance; lacks the capacity to do so.

IV. DECISION
In the matter of [2025] FCR 6, this court rules in favor of the Defendant and order that:

1. The contract be considered null and void.
2. That the plaintiff’s drill be returned to them.
3. That $1,000 dollars be taken from the defendant to pay for the plaintiff’s legal fees (this court is reducing the award based on the lawyer's performance for not presenting the contract in evidence).
   

The Federal Court thanks all involved.