Lawsuit: Adjourned lcn v. EddieGonza420 [2024] DCR 18

[lcn]

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


lcn
Plaintiff

v.

EddieGonza420
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

On June 20th, 2024, I offered to sell EddieGonza420 an Iron Drill for 8k. After explaining how exactly drills are used, EddieGonza420 asked to meet at cbd045. I dropped them the Iron Drill and then they left. EddieGonza420 said they would be back, they just wanted to see how it worked. After telling them they needed to be a miner, I have not heard from them since, despite messaging them several times asking for the drill to be returned, or for the agreed 8k to be paid.

I. PARTIES
1. lcn (Plaintiff)
2. EddieGonza420 (Defendant)

II. FACTS
1. On June 20th, 2024, the Defendant agreed to buy an Iron Drill from the Plaintiff for $8,000.
2. The Defendant told the Plaintiff to come to cbd045 to exchange the Iron Drill.
3. The Defendant picked up the Plaintiff's dropped Iron Drill.
4. The Defendant never paid the Plaintiff for the Iron Drill.
5. The Defendant never gave the Iron Drill back to the plaintiff.
6. The Defendant has not responded to the Plaintiff since messaging "it says i dont have permision to use the drill".

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. Breach of Contract under Contracts Act. The Defendant has failed to fulfill their contractual obligations.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. $8,000 to pay for the Iron Drill or the Iron Drill.
2. Legal fees of the Plaintiff, standing at 20% of the monetary value of the case, which amounts to $1,600.

V: EVIDENCE

Spoiler: Exhibit A

Spoiler: Exhibit B

Spoiler: Exhibit C

Spoiler: Exhibit D

Spoiler: Exhibit E

Spoiler: Exhibit F

Spoiler: Exhibit G

Spoiler: Exhibit H

Spoiler: Exhibit I

Spoiler: Exhibit J

Spoiler: Exhibit K

Spoiler: Exhibit L

Spoiler: Exhibit M

Spoiler: Exhibit N

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 June, 2024

 

[Dartanboy]

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

@eddiegonza420 is required to appear before the District Court in the case of lcn v. EddieGonza420 [2024] DCR 18. 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.​

 

[eddiegonza420]

Hey he drop it I never say when ill bring it back

 

[Dartanboy]

Hey he drop it I never say when ill bring it back

Please create a proper Answer to Complaint.

Alternatively, you can hire a lawyer to represent you.

If you cannot afford a lawyer or do not wish to hire a lawyer, you may request a Public Defender.

 

[eddiegonza420]

I request one

 

[Dartanboy]

I request one

Very well. @ko531 Is hereby appointed to represent the Defendant.

 

[ko531]

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO DISMISS

Rule 5.5 (Lack of Claim)​

The Plaintiff's only claim for relief is breach of contract yet this contract is not valid. The plaintiff believes this to be a valid contract but the terms of said verbal contract are ambiguous. When talking about what lcn would get in return for the iron drill lcn request "8k" at least twice. 8k is ambiguous in terms since there is nothing indicating 8k what? 8k dirt blocks? 8k dollars? 8k word essay?

This exact ambiguity is supported by multiple Federal court verdicts including Bubblybo . Mysticphunky [2023] FCR 111 and StressedGV v. SalsaStar [2022] FCR 52. Due to this ambiguity this contract is null and void meaning there was no breach of contract.

Because of the contract in question not being valid eddiegonza420 can not be held liable for breaking it meaning there is not claim of relief and this case must be dismissed

 

[The_MarxSisters]

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Notice of Appearance

Your Honor,

The defendant has approached my firm, Prestige Law Firm, for legal representation and has hired us to be his attorney. I shall represent the defendant.

I thank ko531 for representing my client for as long as he has.

Attached is proof of representation:

Spoiler: Confirmation of representation

 

[ko531]

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Notice of Appearance

Your Honor,

The defendant has approached my firm, Prestige Law Firm, for legal representation and has hired us to be his attorney. I shall represent the defendant.

I thank ko531 for representing my client for as long as he has.

I understand that I am no longer representing eddigonza and will not move foward in this case

However I would still like a ruling on my Motion to Dismiss as it is still a valid motion.

 

[Dartanboy]

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO DISMISS

Rule 5.5 (Lack of Claim)​

The Plaintiff's only claim for relief is breach of contract yet this contract is not valid. The plaintiff believes this to be a valid contract but the terms of said verbal contract are ambiguous. When talking about what lcn would get in return for the iron drill lcn request "8k" at least twice. 8k is ambiguous in terms since there is nothing indicating 8k what? 8k dirt blocks? 8k dollars? 8k word essay?

This exact ambiguity is supported by multiple Federal court verdicts including Bubblybo . Mysticphunky [2023] FCR 111 and StressedGV v. SalsaStar [2022] FCR 52. Due to this ambiguity this contract is null and void meaning there was no breach of contract.

Because of the contract in question not being valid eddiegonza420 can not be held liable for breaking it meaning there is not claim of relief and this case must be dismissed

When contracts have been ambiguous, they have historically been overturned and all actions within reversed (see Lawsuit: Adjourned - Aezal v. Morgan Sheraton & Co. [2023] FCR 43). However, since these lawsuits, Contract Law has been reformed, giving the parties of this case an interesting opportunity to argue under this new legislation.

The Motion to Dismiss is overruled.

 

[Dartanboy]

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Notice of Appearance

Your Honor,

The defendant has approached my firm, Prestige Law Firm, for legal representation and has hired us to be his attorney. I shall represent the defendant.

I thank ko531 for representing my client for as long as he has.

Attached is proof of representation:

Spoiler: Confirmation of representation

View attachment 44932

Please provide an Answer to Complaint within 24 hours.

 

[itsBlazeX]

Your honor, there has been a miscommunication. We are not representing the defendant, and are instead representing the plaintiff. I ask that you be understanding of the defendant’s position, and allow him time to find legal counsel.

 

[eddiegonza420]

Ay well in that case I'll need the free attorney bc they gave my back

 

[Dartanboy]

@ko531 you are re-appointed to represent the Defendant.

I will allow 12 hours to file an Answer to Complaint since you should already be familiar with the case.

 

[Towloo]

@ko531 you are re-appointed to represent the Defendant.

I will allow 12 hours to file an Answer to Complaint since you should already be familiar with the case.

Your honor, the defendant has retained Dragon Law as legal counsel, we will post the answer to complaint in the specified time frame

 

[Towloo]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

lcn
Plaintiff

V.

EddieGonza420
Defendant

ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
1) The defense disputes fact one
2) The defense disputes fact two
3) The defense disputes fact three
4) The defense disputes fact four
5) The defense disputes fact five
6) The defense disputes fact six

DEFENSES
1) As per royalsnakee V. IIKermitII [2024] DCR 7, the text logs such as provided by the plaintiff are completely inadmissible, therefore there is no evidence to support the plaintiff's claim ("Motion to dismiss is denied. An editable text log on its own is insufficient evidence.").

 

[Dartanboy]

Your honor, the defendant has retained Dragon Law as legal counsel, we will post the answer to complaint in the specified time frame

Please provide proof of representation as soon as possible.

 

[Dartanboy]

In the meantime, Discovery starts now and will last 7 days unless both parties agree to end it early.

 

[itsBlazeX]

The plaintiff wishes to call eddiegonza420 to the stand.

 

[Towloo]

Please provide proof of representation as soon as possible.

Here is the proof requested your honor

 

[Jakovus]

Your honour,
I wish to notify you that Solid Law Firm has been hired as the primary counsel for the Plaintiff.

Request of the former counsel to call EddieGonza420 to the stand remains unchanged.

Proof of consent to represent:

 

[Dartanboy]

I apologize for my tardiness. Discovery has ended and the Plaintiff has 72 hours to provide an Opening Statement.

 

[Jakovus]

IN THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OPENING STATEMENT

Your honour,

This case is nothing but serving justice, justice that the Plaintiff is justly entitled to. I will now analyse separate and significant parts of this lawsuit, as it seems the Defendant fails to understand how the steps they have taken materially and legally injured the Plaintiff.

I. EVIDENCE
From the evidence provided in the initial Complaint, labelled A-N, it is clear how the Defendant wanted to acquire the Plaintiff’s drill, and the Plaintiff believed the Defendant will act bona fide when trying it out to determine whether it suits the Defendant’s needs. It can also be derived from the provided chat logs how there was an implied agreement, allowed for by §5, Point 2 of the Contracts Act, between the Plaintiff and the Defendant about the price of the drill. The Contracts Act, as stipulated in §4, Point 2, Clause a), b), c), d), and e), was in its entirety satisfied, and for following reasons:

1. Offer - Parties clearly and unequivocally gave commitments about their entry into the agreement, reasonably inferred from the circumstances in which the Defendant required a drill, and the Plaintiff was willing to provide (see Ex. A),
2. Acceptance - The Defendant clearly and unequivocally stated their express intent to buy a drill (Ex. A: “Ah I mean I’m down to buy it how do they work” by the Defendant), thus entering an agreement,
3. Consideration - Plaintiff’s drill and Defendant’s $8,000 were the consideration of this agreement, and there was will between the parties to exchange them (see Ex. A),
4. Intent - It is more than visible how both parties intended to exchange the consideration (see Ex. A and C),
5. Capacity - Neither party was working under pressure from the other, or any other third party when the agreement was struck (at least not known to the Plaintiff), and the Plaintiff works under the assumption how both parties are of sufficient playtime to be capacitated to enter binding agreements.

Now that we ascertained how an agreement did indeed exist, it can also be shown to this Court how it was broken. The Defendant declined to pay the $8,000 initially (Ex. C and D), instead opting to try the drill out himself. Little did the Plaintiff know, this would be the last time they saw their drill, as the Defendant proceeded to ignore all of the Plaintiff’s messages and requests, which were persistent and very explicit (Ex. F-N). The Defendant admitted to withholding the drill in this very Court (which will be delved into properly), and such withholding constitutes theft, as the Defendant stopped communicating with the Plaintiff, issued no intent of his own to return it subsequently, and consequently, willingly or not, refused to relinquish the drill back to the Plaintiff. All of this serves to show this Court that the Defendant did not act bona fide, as prescribed by the Contracts Act, §14, Point 1. No Force Majeure event, foreseen by §15, Point 1, 2, and 3, was the Plaintiff notified of, or occurred, which would hinder the Defendant's ability to return the drill, or pay $8,000 to fulfil their obligation in the agreement. In this light, it is clear the Defendant breached the mutual agreement, disregarded it, and furthermore admitted to illegally withholding Plaintiff’s property.

II. DEFENDANT’S ADMISSION
The Defendant, in an earlier and an incomplete Answer to Complaint, stated how “Hey he drop[ped] it I never sa[id] when I[‘]ll bring it back”, in which it is pretty discernable that the Defendant is familiar with the item in question, acknowledges that it is still in their possession, and defending himself by stating that he is the one with the authority to decide when to bring the drill back. Even if the Defendant’s claim about chat logs stands (which does not, also will be delved into), the Defendant still admits to knowing about the contentious item (the drill), supporting the Plaintiff’s claim it is illegally withheld from him. It can also be reasonably assumed that the Defendant knew about at least one provision of the aforementioned agreement, because Plaintiff gave the drill out for trial to the Defendant, and Defendant acknowledges he will bring it back, just not when. This also serves to support the chat logs’ authenticity and legitimacy.

III. CHAT LOGS & CONSIDERATION
Precedent given by the Defendant’s counsel, from the case royalsnakee V. IIKermitII [2024] DCR 7, regarding a Motion to Dismiss, is a pretty weak one, and not of great relevance. It concerns only a Motion to Dismiss, and the presiding judicial officer only ruled on whether the evidence provided was sufficient for the success of the motion, and gave option to introduce collaborative evidence to support. Furthermore, the claim that the said evidence is inadmissible is not true, and not supported by any statute or precedent. The presiding officer in the given case only stated that the evidence was “insufficient”, but maintained it is still evidence, thus remaining perfectly admissible. The authenticity of the chat logs was even partially confirmed by the Defendant, as explained earlier.

Consideration of $8,000 to be provided by the Defendant for the Plaintiff’s drill was proposed by the Plaintiff in Ex. A in the form 8k (k standing for kilo, Greek for thousand). As the matter was not brought up later by any of the parties in the aforementioned agreement, it is reasonable to assume that both parties were working under the assumption that the transaction would be conducted in dollars, the national currency, legal tender, and universal form of payment in the Commonwealth. It would be reasonably expected that the first priority of the supposed buyer, the Defendant, would be the price, and saying just “8 thousand of something”, without it implying dollars, would be completely unhelpful for the buyer. Since the agreement in its whole was made verbally, this kind of reasonableness when determining the means of payment should definitely be entertained by this Court.


To conclude, it is now, in detail, shown to the Defendant, and this Court, how their behaviour damaged the Plaintiff and their trust, and how the Defendant is liable for it. This Court should take into consideration this Statement, and use it to make this judgement as fair as possible, with all of the provided evidence.

Thank you.

DATED: This 11th day of July, 2024

 

[Jakovus]

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO AMEND

Your honour,
I mistakenly misplaced the name of the Federal Court into my Opening Statement.

I move to have it stricken and replaced with the name of the District Court.

Thank you.

DATED: This 11th day of July, 2024

 

[Jakovus]

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO AMEND FILING

Your honour,

The Plaintiff requests to add the following point to the IV. Payer for Relief of the original Complaint:
"2. Legal fees of the Plaintiff, standing at 20% of the monetary value of the case, which amounts to $1,600."

As this seems to have become a more complex case for the Plaintiff, as well as the recent change in counsels, the Plaintiff believes that the legal fees must be included as the compensation for the trouble this lawsuit caused them. Otherwise, it would come out-of-pocket for the Plaintiff, which means that they would be financially negatively affected just for trying to repossess their own property through the judicial system.

I apologise to the Court that this Motion was put forward so late, but also ask for understanding, as I have just recently been appointed counsel for the Plaintiff, and the subsequent decision to include this in the filing could not have been posted any earlier.

Thank you.

DATED: This 11th day of July, 2024

 

[Dartanboy]

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO AMEND FILING

Your honour,

The Plaintiff requests to add the following point to the IV. Payer for Relief of the original Complaint:
"2. Legal fees of the Plaintiff, standing at 20% of the monetary value of the case, which amounts to $1,600."

As this seems to have become a more complex case for the Plaintiff, as well as the recent change in counsels, the Plaintiff believes that the legal fees must be included as the compensation for the trouble this lawsuit caused them. Otherwise, it would come out-of-pocket for the Plaintiff, which means that they would be financially negatively affected just for trying to repossess their own property through the judicial system.

I apologise to the Court that this Motion was put forward so late, but also ask for understanding, as I have just recently been appointed counsel for the Plaintiff, and the subsequent decision to include this in the filing could not have been posted any earlier.

Thank you.

DATED: This 11th day of July, 2024

Legal fees may be added to the Prayer for Relief.

 

[Dartanboy]

The Defense has 72 hours to provide their Opening Statements.

 

[Towloo]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OPENING STATEMENT

Your honor,

May it please the court,

Let's start by examining the key elements of this case. The plaintiff alleges that on June 20th, 2024, he offered to sell an Iron Drill to my client for 8,000 units. According to the plaintiff, after explaining how the drill is used, my client agreed to meet at location cbd045, received the drill, and then left, promising to return after testing its functionality.

However, the plaintiff's entire argument is predicated on text logs that he claims document this agreement. As established in the case of royalsnakee V. IIKermitII [2024] DCR 7, text logs are insufficient as evidence due to their editable nature. This precedent clearly states that an editable text log on its own is insufficient evidence to support such a claim (a motion to dismiss is subject to the same burden of proof as a claim in a civil lawsuit). Without credible, verifiable evidence, the plaintiff's accusations cannot stand.

Furthermore, it is crucial to highlight that at no point did my client, EddieGonza420, explicitly accept the plaintiff's offer to purchase the Iron Drill. Expressing interest in a product is fundamentally different from forming a binding agreement to buy it. In this case, my client merely inquired about the drill and showed interest in understanding its functionality. There was no acceptance of an offer, no agreement to purchase, and certainly no binding contract.

The plaintiff's narrative also includes the claim that my client left with the drill to test it and did not return. However, it's important to note that the plaintiff himself mentioned that the drill required the user to be a miner, a critical detail my client was not initially aware of. This requirement further complicates the plaintiff's assertion that my client agreed to the purchase.

Despite the plaintiff's repeated messages demanding payment or the return of the drill, these communications do not constitute evidence of a binding agreement. The plaintiff has failed to provide any credible proof that such an agreement existed.

In conclusion, we will demonstrate that the plaintiff's case is based on inadmissible evidence and a misunderstanding of the interactions between the parties. There was no contract, no agreement, and therefore no obligation for my client to pay 8,000 units for the Iron Drill. We ask you to carefully consider the facts and the lack of credible evidence and find in favor of the defense.

Thank you.

 

[Towloo]

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO DISMISS

Your honor, the defense respectfully requests that this case be dismissed with prejudice under the following grounds:

1) Rule 5.5 - Lack of Claim
There is insufficient evidence supporting the plaintiff's claim due to the type of evidence presented being determined as insufficient in royalsnakee V. IIKermitII [2024] DCR 7 meaning it does not meet the balance of probabilities required in the Judicial Standards Act. While the plaintiff may argue that it was insufficient evidence for a motion to dismiss, a motion to dismiss is subject to the same standard of proof as a claim in a civil lawsuit.

 

[Jakovus]

Your honour,
may the Plaintiff rebut the Motion to Dismiss?

 

[SumoMC]

With the resignation of the Chief Justice, as Acting Chief Justice I will be taking over his cases.

Your honour,
may the Plaintiff rebut the Motion to Dismiss?

You may proceed

 

[Jakovus]

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ANSWER TO MOTION TO DISMISS

Your honour,

As already delved into in my opening statement, it is clear that the precedent provided and pressed by the Defendant is not a strong argument to dismiss this case, nor does it hold the weight to be able to dismiss it.

The Defendant already self-incriminated himself by making statements in Court before having counsel, and his behaviour proved that the logs are legitimate and that the Defendant knew about concepts outlined in them. The Plaintiff implores this Court to recognise that, and let this case proceed with the provided evidence.

DATED: This 15th day of July, 2024

 

[SumoMC]

Motion to Dismiss is hereby DENIED, with that we will be moving into Witnesses, does the plainitff still wish to call eddiegonza420 to the stand?

 

[Jakovus]

The Plaintiff does wish to call him to the stand still.

 

[SumoMC]

Witness Summons will be issued shortly

 

[SumoMC]

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

@eddiegonza420 is required to appear before the court in the case of lcn v. eddiegonza420 [2024] DCR 18. Failure to appear within 48 hours of this summons will result in a Contempt of Court charge.​

 

[eddiegonza420]

Present your honor.

 

[SumoMC]

The Plaintiff does wish to call him to the stand still.

You may proceed with questioning.

 

[Jakovus]

Questions:
1. Do you confirm that the conversations in evidence occurred?
2. Do you withhold still the Plaintiff's drill?

 

[eddiegonza420]

Look here I ask everyone who has a drill and lcn was the only that /msg me saying he has one and I told him how much I never once say I’ll agreee on buying it bc I got there and he drop it in the floor so I picked up bc it was on the (FLOOR) and I just ask how do u use it. I never once say okay I’m buying it, I just asked how do I use it so he say I have to get mine exam so I left and I never say I’ll come to pay you bc we never agree to an agreement of me having to pay him.

 

[Towloo]

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF REDMONT
OBJECTION
NON-RESPONSIVE/AMBIGUOUS

1) Your honor, the answer given by the witness does not answer the questions that were asked of him. Instead, they seem to explain the entirety of what happened from a single perspective opposed to if the conversation in evidence happened or not. Additionally, it does not answer the question of if he still withholds the drill, as the end statement, "I left and I never say I’ll come to pay," is ambiguous as to whether or not he left the drill or that he left with the drill.

2) The ladder statement, as earlier mentioned, is very ambiguous. It either states, "I left and I never say I’ll come to pay," as in, "I left the drill to go get my miner's license and we never had a final agreement yet," or, "I left with the drill and decided not to pay because we had no agreement."

 

[Jakovus]

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF REDMONT
OBJECTION
NON-RESPONSIVE/AMBIGUOUS

1) Your honor, the answer given by the witness does not answer the questions that were asked of him. Instead, they seem to explain the entirety of what happened from a single perspective opposed to if the conversation in evidence happened or not. Additionally, it does not answer the question of if he still withholds the drill, as the end statement, "I left and I never say I’ll come to pay," is ambiguous as to whether or not he left the drill or that he left with the drill.

2) The ladder statement, as earlier mentioned, is very ambiguous. It either states, "I left and I never say I’ll come to pay," as in, "I left the drill to go get my miner's license and we never had a final agreement yet," or, "I left with the drill and decided not to pay because we had no agreement."

Your honour,

The Defendant's counsel seems to be at odds with their client's testimony. Notwithstanding this inconsistency, the witness clearly affirmed he still withholds the drill, whether he wanted to or not. Furthermore, he affirmed the conversations provided in the evidence. This is an important testimony, and one which clearly incriminates the Defendant. We ask for ir not to be stricken.

Thank you.

 

[Aladeen]

Both objections are overruled. Nevertheless the Defendant's intention of providing the information, the testimony clearly shows that the Defendant picked and kept the drill. Whether the Defendant planned to give the information or not it is still relevant to the case. The ambiguity in the Defendant's answer does not consider the fact that he acknowledged having the drill.

 

[Aladeen]

The Defendant may cross-examine the witness now

 

[Jakovus]

Your honour, 24 hour deadline elapsed.

 

[Aladeen]

The plaintiff has 72 hours to provide a closing statement.

 

[Jakovus]

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CLOSING STATEMENT

To all whom it may concern,

This case is, and has been, as clear as day from the start. The Defendant incriminated themselves multiple times. Their counsel's position was conflicted by the Defendant's testimony. Had the Defendant just tried to settle this out of court with the Plaintiff, my client would have been more than amenable to that. Instead, they ignored their calls, withheld their property, and broke a mutual understanding and agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant.

The evidence is supported from numerous fronts, both from testimony and statements in Court. The Defendant made it public knowledge that the drill is still held by them, and is claiming they need not return it because the Plaintiff and the Defendant never agreed when to do it. This is not a legal defence. This is illegal seizure, and it broke the parties' agreement.

For this, the Plaintiff calls upon this Court to award the Plaintiff damages, and order the return of the drill.

Thank you.

DATED: This 2nd day of August, 2024

 

[Aladeen]

The defendant has 72 hours to provide a closing statement.

 

[Towloo]

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CLOSING ARGUMENTS

Your honor,

May it please the court,

I stand before you to represent EddieGonza420, and I urge you to consider the full context of this case, which revolves around a misunderstanding regarding the transaction.

My client, EddieGonza420, was genuinely interested in purchasing the Iron Drill from the plaintiff for $8,000. When they asked to meet at cbd045, it was with the intent to evaluate the drill's functionality—a reasonable request for any buyer making such a significant purchase. EddieGonza420’s departure after receiving the drill was not an act of theft or deceit; it was a necessary step to thoroughly test the equipment.

The plaintiff informed EddieGonza420 that a miner’s license was required to use the drill effectively. This was new information for my client, who had not anticipated this requirement. The drill, as it stands, is useless to EddieGonza420 because he is not a miner and cannot utilize it without the necessary qualifications. Consequently, the drill holds no value to him.

The plaintiff’s negligence lies in attempting to sell an item that is not usable by someone who does not possess the necessary qualifications, despite easily being able to determine that EddieGonza420 was not a miner (/about). The fact that the plaintiff proceeded with the sale under these conditions is indicative of a failure to ensure that the product was suitable for the buyer. This oversight fundamentally alters the nature of the transaction and raises questions about the validity and fairness of the sale.

The delay in finalizing the transaction is not indicative of an intention to avoid responsibility but rather a response to the realization that the drill was not a practical or valuable purchase for EddieGonza420. This period of reassessment reflects the effort to understand and address the issue of the drill’s usability and value.

It is important to emphasize that EddieGonza420’s actions were driven by a desire to ensure the drill met their needs and that they understood the requirements for its proper use. This is not a case of fraud or deceit but rather one of due diligence and a genuine effort to understand and comply with the necessary conditions.

While my client has admitted to the sequence of events in an unrelated context, this should not be construed as an admission of guilt or malintent. EddieGonza420 has been transparent and honest about the situation.

Ladies and Gentlemen, this case is about a genuine misunderstanding and the plaintiff’s negligence in attempting to sell a product to someone who cannot use it, despite easily being able to know that EddieGonza420 was not a miner. We ask that you consider the full context of the situation and find EddieGonza420 not liable for the accusations against him.

Thank you.

 

[Aladeen]

Court is now in recess pending verdict.