Lawsuit: Dismissed lucaaaaMC v. Docstheory [2023] FCR 70

[Vernicia]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION

lucaaaaMC (Represented by Vernicia)
Plaintiff

v.

Docstheory
Defendant

COMPLAINT
Defendant signed a contract promising to pay Plaintiff 100K if he wins the race. However, the Defendant has refused to fulfill the agreement. The Plaintiff seeks justice and demands the Defendant's payment as agreed in the contract.


I. PARTIES
1. lucaaaaMC, Plaintiff
2. Docstheory

II. FACTS
1. Defendant signed contract promissing to pay defendant 100K if he wins the bet (Screenshots).
2. Plaintiff won the bet by getting at the spawn first with the bread. ( Video )
3. Defendant did not payed Plaintiff 100K as promissed

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
On the 26th of July, Defendant and Plaintiff willingly agreed to a bet and signed a binding contract. Plaintiff emerged victorious in the race but, to their dismay, Defendant failed to fulfill their end of the bargain by not paying the bet amount. We firmly demand that Defendant honors the contract, pays Plaintiff the rightful bet money, and covers the legal expenses.
1) Foundation of Contract Law was breached duo to Defendant refusing to pay the bet amount to Plaintiff

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
1. $100,000 to repay the loan
2. $5,000 in legal fees


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 26th day of July, 2023.

 

[DocsTheory]

Well this is fine :/
Not great for me but ok

 

[JoeGamer]

Please do not speak until summoned by the Court.

 

[JoeGamer]

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 lucaaMC v. DocsTheory. 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.​

 

[Matthew100x]

Your Honor,

I am requesting a 48 hour extension. Prodigium has just retained the defendant as a client and we're in the process of onboarding them.

Yours truly,
~Matthew100x

 

[JoeGamer]

Extension granted.

 

[Vernicia]

Your honor,
It has been over 72 hours since the defense requested the 48 hour extension, and 48 hours since it was granted. The plaintiff would like to move on.

 

[DocsTheory]

I can’t exactly do anything as I have been deported I haven’t been told how I can attended or what I can do

 

[Matthew100x]

Your honor,

I just reviewed the timing and we still have 3 more hours to post.

 

[DocsTheory]

Ok

 

[IncompleteRiver]

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

lucaaaaMC (Represented by Vernicia)
Plaintiff

v.

DocsTheory (Prodigium | Attorneys at Law representing, Lead Counsel IncompleteRiver)
Defendant

1. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

“1. Defendant signed a contract promising to pay the defendant 100K if he won the bet (Screenshots).”

The Defendant disputes this fact.

“2. Plaintiff won the bet by getting at the spawn first with the bread. (Video)”

The Defendant affirms this fact.

“3. Defendant did not pay Plaintiff 100K as promised”

The Defendant disputes this fact.

1. DEFENSES

Vagueness and Ambiguity of Contractual Terms: Under the CLF Act, Section 4(2), it is stated that contracts with non-legally binding agreements are known as promises/gifts. The wording of the contract in the video: "last to get to spawn with bread has to givet the first to do it 100K " would be considered ambiguous. The misspelling and the casual tone, punctuated by a winking emoticon, undermines the seriousness and clarity expected of a legally binding contract. This makes the agreement resemble a light-hearted promise or gift rather than a contractual obligation.

Lack of Consideration: Per the CLF Act, Section 9, all contracts require some form of consideration to be valid. The act of racing to spawn with bread does not provide a clear form of consideration from both parties, making it hard to determine if there was an executory or executed consideration.

Intention to Create Legal Relations: According to the CLF Act, Section 10(1) & (2), reasonable intentions must be displayed to have a legally binding contract. Given the casual nature of the contract's wording, the lack of formal structure, and the title reference to a “Bet” instead of any legally binding entity, a reasonable person would conclude that this was a casual, non-binding arrangement rather than a formal agreement.

Possible Misrepresentation: The CLF Act, Section 12, denotes that any false representation that causes one party to incur a loss might be deemed misrepresentation. The Defendant reserves the right to further investigate the circumstances surrounding the race and the agreement to determine if any misrepresentation occurred.

1. MOTION TO DISMISS

Unfair Terms: According to the CLF Act, Section 14(4), terms in a standard contract are considered unfair if they (the terms) would cause the contractee unjust detriment (financial or non-financial) if the contractor tried to enforce them. Given the contractee in this case would be losing a substantial sum of money if the contractor tried to enforce it, the terms of the contract would be considered unfair.

Your Honor,

The “contract” in question cannot be considered seriously by a court of law. Its vagueness, lack of any intention to create a legal document, and unfair terms prove that the two parties involved were simply making a casual bet, rather than a legally enforceable contract. It’s clear the plaintiff is attempting to extort the defendant out of a substantial amount of money, and has no claim to the contract's integrity.

Given the arguments above and the unfair terms provided in the document, the defense asks the court to dismiss the Plaintiff’s claim in its entirety.


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 3rd day of August 2023

 

[JoeGamer]

Apologies for the delay. I've been absent due to a busy weekend and didn't have time to get to this case.

I will allow the plaintiff to respond to the motion to dismiss. Please do so in the next 48 hours.

 

[IncompleteRiver]

Your Honor,

The 48-hour mark has passed. The defense respectfully requests to move forward with a verdict on the motion to dismiss without the plaintiffs response.

 

[Vernicia]

Your honor,

I believe I still have 10 hours remaining. That being said, I need a little more time to get materials ready. I ask the court for a 24 hour extension.

 

[JoeGamer]

Extension granted.

 

[Vernicia]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
RESPONSE TO MOTION TO DISMISS

On the 26th of July, the Defendant and Plaintiff willingly agreed to a bet and affixed their signatures to a binding contract. As we all know, a contract is a legally binding agreement under which parties can initiate legal action or be subject to it.
The Defendant accepted the contract by signing it, and the contract itself was remarkably straight forward to comprehend. Contract filled legality, fulfillment of Consideration and Legal Intent and formatting.
Consideration is this case was that Defendant can win 100k when he can win the race, whitch is pretty simular to casinos bets on slot machines.
The terms were equitable for both parties, maintaining parity. Legal document whitch was signed is valid and defendant shoud pay plaintiff money won in the bet.

 

[JoeGamer]

I will be accepting the motion to dismiss.

It is clear that the contract used as the primary basis of this lawsuit does not comply with the Foundation for Contract Law. As correctly pointed out by the defendant, the contract contains terms that would be considered unfair based on tests established in the Foundation for Contract Law. $100,000 going to only one party would cause an imbalance between the offeror and the offered by causing a very significant financial detriment. Because of the unfair terms in this contract, the court cannot enforce this contract.

Since the contract is not enforceable, there are no claims on which relief can be granted on.

The case is hereby dismissed.

The Court thanks each party for their time.