Lawsuit: Dismissed Lord_Donuticus v. JoanM999 [2021] FCR 16

[Lord_Donuticus]

IN THE COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


Lord_Dounticus
Plaintiff

v.

JoanM999
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF

I. PARTIES
1. Lord_Donuticus
2. JoanM999

II. FACTS
1. I purchased a banner from the Flag Shop, upon going in I bought the "British Flag". Only after I had it in my inventory did I see that it was faulty! It was missing the central red X that is present on the British Flag, every other flag in the shop is perfect and good. But the British Flag is wrong!

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. I have been sold a Faulty product.
2. It has hurt my feelings that the British Flag was treated in this way.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. A refund of $120
2. $9880 for emotional damages

EVIDENCE:

DATED: This 16th day of February 2021

 

[Matt]

IN THE COURT OF DEMOCRACYCRAFT
SUMMONS
The defendant is required to appear before the court in the case Lord_Donuticus v JoanM999. Failure to appear within 24 hours of this summons will result in a default judgment in favour of the plaintiff.​

 

[Lord_Donuticus]

I would like to request an in game trial.

 

[LilDigiVert]

IN THE COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Answer to Lawsuit

Lord_Dounticus
Plaintiff

v.

JoanM999 (LilDigiVert Representing)
Defendant

Spoiler: digi lawyer

Answer to complaint (Line-by-line)

I purchased a banner from the Flag Shop,

1. Acknowledge Plaintiff purchased a banner from Defendant's chest shop.

upon going in I bought the "British Flag"

2. Deny Plaintiff purchased a "British Flag". Nowhere in the shop or item does it label the flag as "British". The Plaintiff makes this wrongful assumption themself, and is attempting to fabricate the notion that "BLUE BANNER #S" is labeled as the "British Flag" through the use of quotations around the phrase. "BLUE BANNER #1S" may share similar characteristics as the British flag, but is ultimately not the British flag and is not advertised as such.

Spoiler: Zoomed Out Picture of Shop

Only after I had it in my inventory did I see that it was faulty!

3. As the evidence provided by the Plaintiff themself (in addition to the photo in subpoint 2) indicates, the purchased banner in question is on display beside the chest shop. Indeed, the Defendant even specifies which chest shop corresponds with each flag.

Spoiler: Sign Indicator

It was missing the central red X that is present on the British Flag,

4. Deny that Plaintiff purchased a "British Flag". See Subpoint 2.

every other flag in the shop is perfect and good.

5. Concede the claim that Defendant's flags are "perfect and good."

But the British Flag is wrong!

6. Deny that Plaintiff purchased a "British Flag". See Subpoint 2.

I have been sold a Faulty product.

7. The product in question was on display directly next to the chest shop. It is not the fault of the Defendant that the Plaintiff did not do their due diligence before making the purchase.

It has hurt my feelings that the British Flag was treated in this way.

8. Deny that Plaintiff purchased a "British Flag". See Subpoint 2.

The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant: 1. A refund of $120

9. The Defendant should not be liable for the lack of due diligence on the end of the Plaintiff, the product in question was on display next to the chest shop. Additionally, the Plaintiff never asks for a refund in-game prior to the lawsuit, to which the Plaintiff may have considered accepting prior to the legal dispute. The Plaintiff would argue that this court case is frivolous, and should be dismissed on face.

Spoiler: Frivolous Court Case

If you start a court case or lawsuit and it does not have any serious legal intent or purpose, the case will be dismissed. In addition, you will be fined $60 for breaking this law.

2. $9880 for emotional damages

10. The Defendant should not be liable for the lack of due diligence on the end of the Plaintiff, the product in question was on display next to the chest shop. Additionally, the monetary value specified in the prayer of relief is simultaneously arbitrary, frivolous, and ludicrous. The Plaintiff is attempting to shake down a well respected business for $10,000 over a $120 banner that was never labeled to be what they claimed to have purchased. The Plaintiff would argue that:

a) This court case is frivolous, as there is no legal intent, and should be dismissed on face.

b) Even if the court decides that this case is not frivolous, there is no precedent or justification for the emotional damage charge. The only other lawsuit where it was mentioned was dismissed (Vexatis (RaisinBrenCrunch Representing) vs. SGE24 [Case No. 01-2021-28]). Additionally, there is no justification for why $9880 is key in fixing any form of emotional damage. As such, the Defendant motions to nullify this section of the prayer for relief and if held liable, the Defendant should only refund the $120 and offer an apology to the Plaintiff for mischaracterizing a flag that was never claimed to be British to heal any "emotional damage".

Spoiler: Frivolous Court Case

If you start a court case or lawsuit and it does not have any serious legal intent or purpose, the case will be dismissed. In addition, you will be fined $60 for breaking this law.

Counter-Claim

1. The frivolous nature of this suit forced the Defendant to hire a lawyer to ensure the security of their business and assets. As such, the Defendant is seeking for the Plaintiff to pay the legal fees for this court case ($1,000).

2. In the event that the emotional damage prayer for relief is not deemed frivolous, the Defendant is seeking an additional $5,000 for emotional damages. The possibility of losing a sizable amount of monetary assets has caused an immense amount of stress on the Defendant, and will force them to seek therapy in the immediate future.

 

[LilDigiVert]

I would like to request an in game trial.

Due to the nature of time zone differences between myself and my client, an in-game trial would be too difficult to properly execute.

 

[Matt]

Verdict

I appreciate the request for an in-game trial, however, this is rejected due to the disproportionate logistical burden in reference to the public interest in this case.

The defendant's answer to the complaint includes a motion to dismiss. The amount claimed for emotional damages does not, alone, make this case frivolous. A plaintiff is entitled to request any figure, though if this cannot be substantiated and justified then the claimed amount will not be awarded.

However, I do accept that the purchasable product was on display. While it may not have been what the plaintiff expected, the display of the product was reasonably obvious so as to give sufficient notice of the appearance of the item for sale; an element of caveat emptor must be noted here. The court accepts that the flag for sale does not accurately represent the Union Flag, but it is not for the court to restrict an individual's wish to buy the flag on sale. An individual may want to purchase this characterisation of the flag and to accept the plaintiff's submission that this flag is not accurate thus a refund is required would be to unduly impose a contrary intention on those who wish to buy an inaccurate flag.

For these reasons, this case is dismissed. I thank both parties for their comprehensive and timely submissions.

- I order the plaintiff to pay the sum of $80 in legal fees to the defendant.