Lawsuit: Adjourned Maxterpiece vs. Czar_Chief [Case No. 04-2021-08]

Donuts55

Citizen
Education & Commerce Department
IN THE COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


Maxterpiece
Plaintiff

v.

Czar_Chief
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

The defendant owns me $2,000.00 in rent, these are late payments.

I. PARTIES
1. Maxterpiece
2. Czar_Chief

II. FACTS
For a couple of months me and czar have had a standing, for lack of a better word, deal. At the top of one of my apartment buildings, I have a penthouse, he would pay $1,00.00 a month and in exchange I have let him use the penthouse for whatever he wants. He hasn't paid me since the beginning of February of this year. The reason I don't have a rent sign there, is because then someone else can rent it out.


III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
This is simply theft, I can't just lock him out, he most likely has a /home set there. The reason it is theft is because he's "renting" something of mine, without paying for it.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
I would like $3,000.00 paid by Czar_Chief(2,000 for the amount he owes, plus another 1,000 cuz this is quite a hassle he's caused me)

evidence here

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 7th day of April, 2021
 

Attachments

Matt

Citizen
Judge
Matt_S0
Matt_S0
1613516434104.png


IN THE COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
SUMMONS
The defendant is required to appear before the court in the case of Maxterpiece v Czar_Chief. Failure to appear within 48 hours of this summons will result in a default judgment in favour of the plaintiff.​
 

Matt

Citizen
Judge
Matt_S0
Matt_S0

Verdict



As the defendant has not responded to my summons, I shall proceed with a default judgment.

For a valid contract to be in existence, there must be four components present. Firstly, there must be an offer. Here, there has been an offer of accommodation made. Secondly, there must be an acceptance. Here, an acceptance has been made. Thirdly, there must be consideration. Here, there has been consideration, given that the plaintiff is providing real property in exchange for payment from the defendant. Finally, there must be an intention to create legal relations. Here, on a balance of probabilities, the official discord message shows this intention. However, I must add that pressuring someone to accept a contract could possibly void the contract; albeit I do not find that this is the case here.

While terms can be implied by a court into the contract, implying penalty clauses or fines for non-payment of rent is ultra vires. As such, I am limited to the details of the oral contract presented before me. I find that the defendant has indeed broken this contract.

The defendant must:

- Pay the plaintiff $2000 in unpaid rent.


 
Top