Lawsuit: Adjourned MrFluffy2U94 vs. CopTop_YT [2023] FCR 92

[MrFluffy2U94]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION

MrFluffy2U94
Plaintiff

v.

CopTop_YT
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

Your honor, the Defendant CopTop_YT hereby referred to as the defendant, knowingly and willingly entered into a contract to purchase property from myself, and has since decided not to adhere to the terms of the contract. I am seeking suit for breach of contract and requesting compensation for contracts that I have in turn entered into on the pretense of this contract being upheld.

I. PARTIES
1. CopTop_YT

II. FACTS

1. Your honor, on October 22 at approximately 6 PM I was messaged on discord by the defendant requesting that I sell him a property near spawn. After 35 minutes of negotiating in discord DM's we agreed to terms for myself to sell the property to the defendant for a sum of $46,000. See Exhibits A and B.

I agreed to have my personal belongings removed by the next day and spent hours painstakingly removing all of my companys belongings, as this was set to become the headquarters for my company, Redmont Development LLC. I had created 4 floors of storage underground and needed to remove over 200 barrels and 200 shulkers worth of materials from the property to accommodate the sale. I reached out to the defendant the next day to let them know that they plot was ready for sale and received no response. On October 24th, the defendant requested additional time to make the transaction, as they indicated that an IRL situation would not allow them to be online for 1-2 days, and they reaffirmed their intent to purchase the property as agreed upon previously. See Exhibit C.

Finally, I reached out again today, October 26th to see if the defendant was available today to complete the transaction, and the defendant stated that their plans had changed on DC and that they no longer wanted to purchase the property. In a later message, the defendant then stated that an unexpected expense has came up and that they could not go through with the deal. See exhibit C.


III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

During the time period in which the defendant agreed to terms of the contract, I have purchased a piece of property, and also agreed to terms of a contract to purchase another property, that I would not have sought to purchase otherwise.

On October 22nd at approximately 9 PM, I reached out to _Pugsy in game to enquire about purchasing two parcels from him C007 and C008 to replace the headquarters I had just entered into a contract to sell to the defendant. We agreed to the terms to purchase both plots for $25,000. I did not take any screenshots to verify the contract, as I have had several dealings with _Pugsy and anticipated no issues with upholding the terms, but _Pugsy can be sworn in and questioned if necessary, or chat logs pulled for the evening in question to verify.

On October 23rd, I also reached out to a neighboring land owner Lightiago to purchase a property to allow for expansion of the company headquarters. We agreed to terms of purchasing C001 for a sum of $25,000 as well.

Your honor, you will see that this contract meets all of the requirements for a legally binding contract per the CLF (Foundation of Contract Law Act).

Per the act in Section 4 articles 3&4 :
(3) If an agreement is to be a contract there must be a certain essential criteria that must exist in order to create a contract.
(4) These are in order: Offer, Acceptance, Consideration, Capacity, Legality, Legal intent and Format.

We will lay these out in order.

Here you will see the offer made by the defendant with my counter-offer.

Here you will see the defendant's acceptance.

As confirmed below, the entirety of the conversation shows the consideration. He requested to purchase my plot C010 (he sent a picture to verify which plot), to which I would receive $46,000.

Capacity - As of this writing, the defendant has an active balance of $52,353.49, and owns several prominent properties.

The defendant has also been bidding to acquire other properties currently being auctioned off for considerable sums of money, therefore I conclude that the defendant has the capacity to adhere to the terms of the contract.

Legality and legal intention - There is nothing illegal about buying and selling property, and I believe given the facts and the defendants multiple affirmations of their intent to purchase the property, coupled with the fact that the defendant reached out to me to initiate the purchase shows their legal intent.

Finally, the terms of the contract are expressed. The defendant wished to purchase the property, and agreed to terms to purchase the property for a sum of $46,000.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:

I am seeking that the court order the defendant to fulfill the terms of the agreement. I am seeking payment of $46,000 in exchange for the property in question C010.

I am also seeking $15,000 for the loss of enjoyment in Redmont that I have faced in having to file this suit, along with the financial burden that I have endured in pursuit of this suit and simply seeking the fulfillment of the contract.

EVIDENCE :
Exhibit A

Exhibit B

Exhibit C

Witnesses : _Pugsy, Ligthiago

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 October 2023.

 

[Dartanboy]

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

The Defendant @CopTop is required to appear before the Federal Court in the case of MrFluffy2U94 vs. CopTop_YT [2023] FCR 92. Failure to appear within 72 hours of this summons will result in a default judgement based on the known facts of this case.

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.​

 

[CopTop]

im present im looking for a lawyer

 

[Dartanboy]

im present im looking for a lawyer

Thank you for your punctuality. The original deadline is still set. If you cannot find representation, please return before deadline and you may request a public defender.

 

[HyperCraftYt]

Good afternoon, your honor. I will be the defendant's representative for this case. Below I will provide evidence of the defendant's approval of my services.

 

[HyperCraftYt]

Thank you for your punctuality. The original deadline is still set. If you cannot find representation, please return before deadline and you may request a public defender.

I forgot to tag you with the first message. My apologies, your honor.

 

[Dartanboy]

I forgot to tag you with the first message. My apologies, your honor.

No need to tag me. Thank you for your appearance. Please provide an Answer to Complaint or Motion to Dismiss before the deadline (about 58 hours from now)

 

[HyperCraftYt]

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

MrFluffy2U94
Plaintiff

v.

CopTop_YT
Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
1. I dispute the complaint made by the plaintiff

II. DEFENSES
1. On the evening of October 22, my client, CopTop_YT, made an inquiry to purchase a plot owned by the defendant. Although there was an agreement of 46 thousand dollars for the property(see exhibit A), the criteria listed in the plaintiff's complaint was not met. There was never a legal agreement between the two parties, and a formatted contract was never drafted. Therefore, my client holds no liability for the actions and purchases made by the plaintiff.
2. When my client terminated the agreement, he stated that, "unexpected expenses came up," and that he would not be able to purchase the property. This statement can be confirmed by a screenshot of my client's balance taken earlier today(see exhibit B).

EVIDENCE.
Exhibit A

Exhibit B.

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 28th day of October, 2023.

 

[Dartanboy]

Thank you. The Plaintiff now has 72 hours to provide their Opening Statement.

 

[HyperCraftYt]

Thank you. The Plaintiff now has 72 hours to provide their Opening Statement.

Your honor, I have come to realize that I provided duplicate evidence, where I originally planned to put an important image to the case. I humbly request to add said evidence before we begin opening statements.

 

[MrFluffy2U94]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF REDMONT
OPENING STATEMENT

Your honor, I will try to keep this short and sweet as this is a pretty simple case. The defendant entered into a legally binding contract that meets all of the requirements for a contract as laid out in the CLF (Foundation of Contract Law Act).

Per the act in Section 4 articles 3&4 :
(3) If an agreement is to be a contract there must be a certain essential criteria that must exist in order to create a contract.
(4) These are in order: Offer, Acceptance, Consideration, Capacity, Legality, Legal intent and Format.

As you can see, the agreement that we entered into in our DM's checks each and every one of these requirements.

Again in order:

1. Offer - The defendant offered $40,000 for the property, and then I counter-offered $46,000. This is the offer that I made to the defendant.

2. Acceptance - I made sure to definitively ask the defendant if they wanted to purchase the property to which they responded "yes I am ready to buy".

3. Consideration - Defined in the CLF as "Consideration is the price to be paid under a contract" That price is the aforementioned $46,000.

4. Capacity - As shown, at the moment of filing this suit, the defendant greatly exceeds the capacity necessary to complete the transaction. His balance at the time of filing was over $50,000 and he owns several prominent properties thats value greatly exceed that of the contracted sum.

Also, in regards to the defendants capacity he continued to bid on other properties in the Real Estate - Discord auction page. The defendant has a clear and unquestioned capacity to be able to uphold their end of the contract.

5. Legality - It is perfectly legal for the defendant to purchase this property, as it is perfectly legal for me (the owner) to sell this property to the defendant.

6. Legal Intent and format - The defendant was the initiator of the bargaining. If that does not clearly show their intent to purchase, the defendant affirmed several times that they wanted me to hold the property and not list it in game because they wanted to purchase the property.

Here, ALL aspects of the CLF requirements for a contract and met and clearly this is a legally binding contract that the defendant willingly entering into. To confirm, we can even quote the Defending Councils sworn testimony. Just a few remarks above he stated "Although there was an agreement of 46 thousand dollars for the property".

In rebuttal to the Defense's point 1. The defendant's own council provides contradicting feedback here. To begin, the council AFFIRMS "Although there was an agreement of 46 thousand dollars for the property" then later states " There was never a legal agreement between the two parties" yet they just stated a few words earlier that there was. As we just observed, through the criteria given in the CLF, there WAS a legal contract between both parties. There are several applicable

In rebuttal to the Defense's point 2. It is true, the defendant did attempt to terminate the contract, however it was several days after the defendant had accepted the contract, making it legally binding. Per the CLF Section 7 article (2) "Revocation I sone such method, this mean an offer can be revoked or withdrawn at any time before it is validly accepted". Clearly since this occurred several days after the contract was validly accepted, this termination attempt is null and void. If courts were to accept a termination after a contract is agreed to, then that would undermine the CLF and the purpose of having contracts.

Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter.

 

[Dartanboy]

Thank you for the Opening Statement.

The Defense now has 72 hours to provide their Opening Statement.

 

[Dartanboy]

Your honor, I have come to realize that I provided duplicate evidence, where I originally planned to put an important image to the case. I humbly request to add said evidence before we begin opening statements.

I will allow new evidence to be submitted in your Opening Statement, as long as the Plaintiff has no reasonable objections.

 

[HyperCraftYt]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF REDMONT
OPENING STATEMENT

Your honor, my client still holds no liability for the actions and purchases made by the plaintiff after the agreement made on October 22nd of this year. The agreement made on the aforementioned date did not list specific terms regarding termination, and is therefore void in breach of contract complaint.

The agreement of $46,000, in exchange for the previously mentioned plot(exhibit A), listed no terms regarding termination or modification, so therefore, it is in my client's right to leave the agreement. In addition, the terms found in, "The Contract Law Creation Act,"(exhibit B), states nothing about verbal contract, and therefore my client is free of liability to any agreements made, legally binding or otherwise.

I would also like to state that my client's reasoning for terminating the agreement, stated as, "unexpected expenses," did in fact cost him over $12,000, and therefore the agreement would have been void either way. My client described the expenses as, "dct fining." Since the agreement was nulled by government fines, there would have been no way for my client to complete the agreement legally.

I would also like to add that there was many examples of logical fallacies in the plaintiff's opening statement. One such fallacy is their comparison of two quotes from my Answer to Complaint, including: "Although there was an agreement of 46 thousand dollars for the property," and, "There was never a legal agreement between the two parties." The unfair comparison between these two quotes completely ignores the legal difference between an agreement, and a legally binding contract.

Exhibit A

Exhibit B(Term 3 is excluded due to irrelevance.

Thank you for your consideration.

 

[MrFluffy2U94]

I have no objections to the evidence being added.

 

[Dartanboy]

Thank you the quick responses. Both parties now have 72 hours to provide a list of witnesses or declare they have none.

 

[HyperCraftYt]

I will allow new evidence to be submitted in your Opening Statement, as long as the Plaintiff has no reasonable objections.

Exhibit B of the Answer to Complaint, should have instead been a screenshot of my clients balance, provided below(I had to reduce size due to server limitations).

 

[MrFluffy2U94]

OBJECTION
Relevance

Your honor,
The reasons for the defendants' illegal attempt to terminate the contract after acceptance is irrelevant to the case. Furthermore, there is nothing in the law that makes this an illegal sale due to the fact that the defendant was fined for an unrelated matter.

As the previous screenshot of the defendants balance and property holdings show, the defendant still has the capacity to follow through with the legally binding contract.

 

[MrFluffy2U94]

OBJECTION
Improper Evidence

Your honor,

The current balance of the defendant is also irrelevant to the case at hand. I provided evidence at the start of the case that showed that the defendant had the balance required to complete the transaction at the time that he requested an illegal termination of contract. Who is to say that the defendant didn't deposit the missing funds into a bank account to attempt a plea due to lack of capacity?

Any change in the defendants balance between the contract acceptance and now is irrelevant and solely the responsibility of the defendant to take care of.

Also, the missing balance (by my math $21,420.44) is strikingly similar to the balance of the purchase price of C092 ($21,200). Which I entered into evidence proof that the defendant was bidding on other properties while requesting more time to fulfill the contract.

The defendants council is trying to represent that the defendants bid on this property and subsequent winning of the auction put the defendants balance below the required amount required in our contract, and therefore the contract is void, then this is improper evidence and our contract cannot be voided due to the defendants actions after contract acceptance.

 

[MrFluffy2U94]

I have no witnesses that I wish to call at this time.

 

[Dartanboy]

OBJECTION
Relevance
View attachment 38483
Your honor,
The reasons for the defendants' illegal attempt to terminate the contract after acceptance is irrelevant to the case. Furthermore, there is nothing in the law that makes this an illegal sale due to the fact that the defendant was fined for an unrelated matter.

As the previous screenshot of the defendants balance and property holdings show, the defendant still has the capacity to follow through with the legally binding contract.

Overruled. Objections on relevance are only for irrelevant evidence, statements, etc. Whilst it may be found that the argument is not strong or backed by law, it is still an argument that is related to the contract, and thus relevant.

 

[Dartanboy]

OBJECTION
Improper Evidence
View attachment 38484

Your honor,

The current balance of the defendant is also irrelevant to the case at hand. I provided evidence at the start of the case that showed that the defendant had the balance required to complete the transaction at the time that he requested an illegal termination of contract. Who is to say that the defendant didn't deposit the missing funds into a bank account to attempt a plea due to lack of capacity?

Any change in the defendants balance between the contract acceptance and now is irrelevant and solely the responsibility of the defendant to take care of.

Also, the missing balance (by my math $21,420.44) is strikingly similar to the balance of the purchase price of C092 ($21,200). Which I entered into evidence proof that the defendant was bidding on other properties while requesting more time to fulfill the contract.

The defendants council is trying to represent that the defendants bid on this property and subsequent winning of the auction put the defendants balance below the required amount required in our contract, and therefore the contract is void, then this is improper evidence and our contract cannot be voided due to the defendants actions after contract acceptance.

The Defense may respond to this Objection within 24 hours.

 

[HyperCraftYt]

OBJECTION
Assumes Facts not in Evidence
Your honor, the plaintiff's objection regarding, "Improper evidence," assumes information pertaining to bidding and purchasing price of the property in question. No evidence of either of these pieces of information has been provided.

 

[Dartanboy]

OBJECTION
Assumes Facts not in Evidence
Your honor, the plaintiff's objection regarding, "Improper evidence," assumes information pertaining to bidding and purchasing price of the property in question. No evidence of either of these pieces of information has been provided.

Please do not object to objections. You may file a response to objection. These comments will be struck.

 

[HyperCraftYt]

Your Honor, the objection made by the plaintiff on the basis of "Improper Evidence," contains facts not based on evidence provided in the complaint or opening statements. All information regarding bidding prices is completely independent of any evidence provided up to this point in the case. In addition, it has not been established that the "agreement," that my client and the plaintiff entered is a legally binding contract, so it is incorrect to assume it as such.

 

[HyperCraftYt]

Your honor, I have no witnesses I wish to testify. I would however, like to present a new piece of evidence in leu of a witness testimony. This new evidence is regarding the fine that gave my client a lack of capacity to complete the agreement.

 

[MrFluffy2U94]

Your honor,

If the defending council is going to insist that the balance change of $21,420.22 did not come from the auction and subsequent purchase of this plot C092 (for $21,200) that I did previously submit into evidence that the defendant was bidding on AFTER the agreed upon contract, I would like to rescind my previous waiving of witnesses and call on CopTop_YT as a witness.

I would also like to request a copy of the defendants' transaction history be provided to the court to validate these claims, as it will show that at the time of the defendants attempted termination that the defendant DID possess the capacity to follow through with the contract as the previously admitted evidence shows.

 

[HyperCraftYt]

OBJECTION
Inflammatory
Your honor, the plaintiff's behavior regarding repeatedly coming back to the same topic that the case has so far found to be primarily unimportant, is clearly attempting to cause prejudice in the jury. The plaintiff has no reason to continue this behavior, since the point has been primarily regarded as unnecessary, and not needed for a strong case.

 

[MrFluffy2U94]

In response to your objection, this is not “primarily unimportant”.

When providing the “new evidence” of your clients balance you stated the following “I would also like to state that my client's reasoning for terminating the agreement, stated as, "unexpected expenses," did in fact cost him over $12,000, and therefore the agreement would have been void either way. My client described the expenses as, "dct fining." Since the agreement was nulled by government fines, there would have been no way for my client to complete the agreement legally.”

I am disputing the fact that any action taken by the defendant AFTER the contract was accepted, does not affect the legality of the contract. The defendant is responsible for their ability to uphold their commitments. An unrelated fine or purchase of another property does not nullify the contract in question.

Therefore the fact of why the defendants balance was reduced since the start of the trial is a factor that needs to be considered, which you have provided no evidence for. Just because in your opinion it is of “primarily unimportant” does not mean it is in the courts eyes.

Also this is not a jury trial. Dartanman is the judge and sole voice in deciding the legality of the contract.

 

[HyperCraftYt]

In response to your rebuttal, your claims are still based off of decisions that have not been made yet. There has still been no decision made on whether or not the agreement can be considered a contract. The defendant was made to pay fees to the Department of Construction and Transportation based on business that was already in motion at the time of the agreement. It would be injust to penalize a law abiding citizen, when the only other way to complete the agreement would have been to not pay the fee.

 

[Dartanboy]

Enough! This courtroom will not devolve into an argumentative battlefield.

I will remind both parties that you are limited to one Objection and one Response per matter. Do not Object to Objections or Respond to Responses.

This will be your only warning, and further disobedience/disruption will result in a Contempt or Court charge.

I will go over the Objections and respond shortly. Additionally, the "response to rebuttal" will he struck.

 

[Dartanboy]

OBJECTION
Improper Evidence
View attachment 38484

Your honor,

The current balance of the defendant is also irrelevant to the case at hand. I provided evidence at the start of the case that showed that the defendant had the balance required to complete the transaction at the time that he requested an illegal termination of contract. Who is to say that the defendant didn't deposit the missing funds into a bank account to attempt a plea due to lack of capacity?

Any change in the defendants balance between the contract acceptance and now is irrelevant and solely the responsibility of the defendant to take care of.

Also, the missing balance (by my math $21,420.44) is strikingly similar to the balance of the purchase price of C092 ($21,200). Which I entered into evidence proof that the defendant was bidding on other properties while requesting more time to fulfill the contract.

The defendants council is trying to represent that the defendants bid on this property and subsequent winning of the auction put the defendants balance below the required amount required in our contract, and therefore the contract is void, then this is improper evidence and our contract cannot be voided due to the defendants actions after contract acceptance.

Overruled. Once again, the evidence is being used in an argument. It may prove not to be beneficial, or even have zero legal power, but the reasonable use in an argument gives the evidence relevance.

 

[Dartanboy]

OBJECTION
Inflammatory
Your honor, the plaintiff's behavior regarding repeatedly coming back to the same topic that the case has so far found to be primarily unimportant, is clearly attempting to cause prejudice in the jury. The plaintiff has no reason to continue this behavior, since the point has been primarily regarded as unnecessary, and not needed for a strong case.

Overruled. Objections are generally acceptable in court. They are not cause for prejudice.

 

[Dartanboy]

As there was some confusion, I ask that both parties list their witnesses in the next 48 hours.

 

[MrFluffy2U94]

Your honor, I have no witnesses that I would like to call upon.

 

[HyperCraftYt]

Your honor, I have no witnesses to call upon at this time.

 

[Dartanboy]

Very well. As there will be no witnesses, we will move on to Closing Statements.

The Plaintiff has 72 hours to provide their Closing Statement.

 

[MrFluffy2U94]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

CLOSING STATEMENT

Your Honor,

As you can see from the facts presented in this case, the events that transpired between October 22 and October 25 unequivocally meet all of the listed requirements in the CLF for a legally binding contract. We have observed and proven that ALL of the following criteria were met including Offer, Acceptance, Consideration, Capacity, Legality, Legal intent and Format. As you are well aware, there is plenty of legal precedent for the courts to uphold contracts that meet this exact criteria.

The defenses counters boil down to 2 claims which I will dispel right here. The first being that there were no terms in the contract for termination or modification for the contract therefore the contract is illegal. If these were requirements of a legally binding contract why are these items not listed in CLF section 4 articles 3 and 4 as requirements? Simply put because they are NOT required for a contract to be considered legally binding. The CLF has provisions within its language that spells out the requirements for termination or modification of contracts, therefore to include this as a requirement would be duplicative.

The second argument made by the defending council is that the defendant was unable to fulfill the contract due to "unexpected expenses" to which they have claimed but been unable to prove that was due to DCT fines. Your honor, as shown in my opening statement, at the time of filing this suit (which was 3 hours after the attempted illegal termination of the contract) the defendant GREATLY exceeds the capacity to be able to uphold their end of the contract as is shown by their substantial land holdings, and considerable balance. In fact, as the evidence shows this "unexpected expense" has not stopped them from spending considerable sums of money purchasing other properties.

All in all, an individual cannot simply circumvent a legally binding contract because of their own reckless spending and "changing their mind" after the fact. I as a member of the House of Representatives, urge you Judge, to uphold the previously laid precedents set by your predecessors to hold individuals accountable for their actions and not undermine the authority of the law, in this case the Foundations of Contract Law or CLF.

Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter.

 

[Dartanboy]

Thank you. The Defense now has 72 hours to provide their Closing Statement.

 

[HyperCraftYt]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

CLOSING STATEMENT

Your honor,

The facts presented in this case by the plaintiff, do not prove that the agreement made between my client and the plaintiff was legally binding. The provisions found within the CLF were not met to completion, and therefore there was no legal obligation for my client to uphold the agreement. In addition, the only well established precedent regarding contracts in the capacity shown in this case, is only loosely tied to the facts of this case, and there is little reason to justify following such precedent.

The plaintiff claims that my client had the capacity to uphold the agreement, simply from a screenshot taken only 3 hours after the termination of said agreement. There is very much a possibility that the expenses paid to the DCT by my client, CopTop_YT, were made after this short timeframe. This claim is supported by the evidence provided in (modified)exhibit B of the Answer to Complaint, which shows a lower balance of only slightly above $30,500. This screenshot proves that my client was in no such capacity to complete the agreement, and therefore the plaintiff's claim is incorrect.

The plaintiff also claims that the terms of the agreement made with my client by the plaintiff was breached by my client refusing to buy the plot in question. The terms of said agreement only stated that the plot would be given to my client, in exchange for $46,000. My client terminated said agreement before the plot was transferred, and he therefore holds no liability.

In conclusion, my client was well within his legal right to terminate the agreement between himself and the plaintiff. In addition, the terms of said agreement were never formatted and signed, per the CLF used as evidence by the plaintiff. Therefore, the agreement was never legally binding to begin with. It is also quite unjust of the plaintiff to leverage his position as a representative, in an attempt to sway judgment in his favor. I implore that you remain impartial in deciding the verdict of a case that could put my client in large sums of debt.

Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter, your honor.

 

[Dartanboy]

Thank you. This court is now in recess until a verdict is delivered.

 

[Dartanboy]

Verdict

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
VERDICT
MrFluffy2U94 vs. CopTop_YT [2023] FCR 92

I. PLAINTIFF'S POSITION
1. The Plaintiff and Defendant agreed upon a legally binding contract under the CLF Act, which required the Defendant to purchase a plot from the Plaintiff for $46,000.
2. The Defendant illegally backed out of the contract.

II. DEFENDANT’S POSITION
1. There was no legal agreement.
2. A properly formatted contract was not formed.
3. Unexpected financial burden - particularly government fines - allowed the Defendant to back out.
4. Because the contract did not include a termination clause, it can be left.
5. The Defendant did not have the capacity to fulfill this agreement, and therefore it is not a valid contract.

III. THE COURT OPINION
1. Capacity was defined by the Supreme Court as "a party that has the legal ability to enter into a contract" (see [2022] SCR 11), and thus, the Defendant has the capacity to enter a contract on their own behalf.
2. There is no requirement that contracts have termination clauses.
3. Unexpected financial burden - even imposed by the Government - does not generally nullify a contract.
4. Although it is often helpful to have contracts written out in a more official manner, it is not a requirement under the law.
5. It is clear, now, that Consideration, Capacity, and Legality are present.
6. Legal Intent is likely present as well, seeing as both parties seemed to negotiate a price.
7. Despite these negotiations, it is not clear that an Offer (as defined by the CLF Act - an "unequivocal statement of terms on which you are prepared to do business" that "cannot be vague or ambiguous.").
8. Particularly, the Defendant stated they  wanted to purchase the plot, but did not make an unequivocal statement of terms. Later, the Plaintiff stated they could do $46k and asked "Are you ready to purchase it?" Once again, this lacks the unequivocality to be considered an Offer under the CLF Act.

IV. VERDICT
The Federal Court hereby rules in favor of the Defendant, and grants no Prayers for Relief.

The Federal Court thanks both parties for their time.

 

[Dartanboy]

The Supreme Court has opted to re-open this case and affirm that an Offer was made. I will likely provide my dissenting opinion in the verdict, but will overall uphold the decision (as the Federal Court is required to.)

In light of this, I will allow both parties to present arguments as to why this was or was not a legal contract. Keep in mind that, according to the Supreme Court, there was an Offer, and the Federal Court cannot override that decision.

Thus, your arguments should not be about whether there was an Offer.

Both parties have 72 hours from now to provide a filing akin to a Closing Statement.

 

[Dartanboy]

Mentioning both parties since this case has been closed for awhile

@MrFluffy2U94
@CopTop / @HyperCraftYt

 

[HyperCraftYt]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

CLOSING STATEMENT

Your honor,

I believe that the agreement made by the plaintiff and my client was not a contract for several reasons. First and foremost, the agreement on the price was very vague and ambiguous. The plaintiff states that he, "could do 46k." This does not constitute a legal term.

Secondly, when ready to complete the deal, the plaintiff simply asks, "Are you ready to buy?" This does not constitute legal intent, per the CLF. Both of these arguments provide enough evidence to nullify the plaintiff's claim that the agreement between him and my client, CopTopYT, was a legally binding contract.

Lastly, I would like to once again bring to the attention of the court, that the plaintiff has stated on several occasions, that my client, the defendant, was in legal capacity to complete the agreement. This has been disproved by evidence on several occasions, which would nullify the argument of capacity as well.

Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter, your honor.

 

[MrFluffy2U94]

Your honor, let’s review review the facts in the case.

According to the the CLF the criteria in consideration for whether a contract is legally binding are the following : Offer, Acceptance, Consideration, Capacity, Legality, Legal intent and Format.

The Supreme Court has already ruled that there was an offer. Your own prior ruling stated that consideration, capacity and legality are present. According to your own statement “Legal Intent is likely present as well, seeing as both parties seemed to negotiate a price.”. Another statement from your judgement confirms that format is accomplished where you state “Although it is often helpful to have contracts written out in a more official manner, it is not a requirement under the law.”

Based on the judgements made in this case by yourself and the Supreme Court, the ONLY remaining criteria remaining is acceptance.

Your honor, the evidence for acceptance is immense. To start, the defense admits several times in their opening statement that there was an agreement. An agreement clearly indicates that the defendant has accepted the contract.

In regards to acceptance the CLF states “(1) Acceptance is a statement of willingness to enter into a contract as offered, it is the act the creates the contract. At that moment of acceptance the parties to the contract are bound and cannot be revoked unless mutually assured.
(2) A valid acceptance is essentially saying yes to the offer. Acceptance of an offer must be absolute and unqualified, if not the original offer is rejected and the contract must start afresh.
(3) The two main parts of acceptance is it must match the offer “mirror image rule” ( states that an offer must be accepted exactly with no modifications. The offeror is the master of their own offer ) and it must be communicated.”

Your honor, the Supreme Court upheld the fact there there is a clear offer of the property at c010 for $46,000. To which the defendant responded ok. This does not meet acceptance, however to provide clarity to the situation, I responded asking the defendant “Are you wanting to purchase it?” And the defendant unequivocally states “Yes I am ready to buy”. Your honor, as you can see this meets the requirements of the CLF. It shows the defendants willingness to enter the contract. In case further confirmation is required, let’s review point (2) in the CLF. It says “A valid acceptance is essentially saying yes to the offer. Acceptance of an offer must be absolute and unqualified, if not the original offer is rejected and the contract must start afresh.” If “essentially” saying yes to the offer consists as acceptance, LITERALLY saying yes to the offer would definitely qualify as acceptance. Since the defendant stated yes, they accept the offer without any modifications, it meets the “mirror image rule” referenced in (3).

Your honor, as we can see there is only 1 criteria that has yet to be ruled on in this case, the acceptance, which is clear , absolute, and unqualified exactly as the CLF requires.

Thank you for your contributions to this case, and for your expedience in reopening this case.

 

[MrFluffy2U94]

@Dartanman

 

[Dartanboy]

@Dartanman

Please refrain from speaking out of turn.

This court is now in recess until another verdict is delivered.

 

[Dartanboy]

I apologize for the delay. I will be posting a verdict today or tomorrow.

 

[Dartanboy]

Verdict

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
VERDICT
MrFluffy2U94 vs. CopTop_YT [2023] FCR 92

I. PLAINTIFF'S POSITION
1. The Plaintiff and Defendant agreed upon a legally binding contract under the CLF Act, which required the Defendant to purchase a plot from the Plaintiff for $46,000.
2. The Defendant illegally backed out of the contract.

II. DEFENDANT’S POSITION
1. There was no legal agreement.
2. A properly formatted contract was not formed.
3. Unexpected financial burden - particularly government fines - allowed the Defendant to back out.
4. Because the contract did not include a termination clause, it can be left.
5. The Defendant did not have the capacity to fulfill this agreement, and therefore it is not a valid contract.

III. THE COURT OPINION
1. Capacity was defined by the Supreme Court as "a party that has the legal ability to enter into a contract" (see [2022] SCR 11), and thus, the Defendant has the capacity to enter a contract on their own behalf.
2. There is no requirement that contracts have termination clauses.
3. Unexpected financial burden - even imposed by the Government - does not generally nullify a contract.
4. Although it is often helpful to have contracts written out in a more official manner, it is not a requirement under the law.
5. It is clear, now, that Consideration, Capacity, and Legality are present.
6. Legal Intent is likely present as well, seeing as both parties seemed to negotiate a price.
7. Despite these negotiations, it is not clear that an Offer (as defined by the CLF Act - an "unequivocal statement of terms on which you are prepared to do business" that "cannot be vague or ambiguous.").
8. Particularly, the Defendant stated they  wanted to purchase the plot, but did not make an unequivocal statement of terms. Later, the Plaintiff stated they could do $46k and asked "Are you ready to purchase it?" Once again, this lacks the unequivocality to be considered an Offer under the CLF Act.
9. The Supreme Court has decided in the recent Appeal of this case (Appeal: Accepted - [2023] FCR 92 - Appeal Request) that there is, in-fact, an Offer - an unequivocal statement of terms on which the Plaintiff and Defendant were prepared to do business.
10. As this is the Federal Court, that decision is binding, and I will present my dissenting opinion here, although we will uphold the ruling that there was an Offer.

First, let's look at the relevant law and the facts: the CLF Act defines an Offer as an "unequivocal statement of terms on which you are prepared to do business" which "cannot be vague or ambiguous." This means that all of the following must be true: (1) It must be a statement. (2) It must be unequivocal. (3) It must not be vague. (4) It must not be ambiguous. Paraphrasing, this is how the conversation in this case went down: Defendant: "I want to by your plot." Plaintiff: "I would be open to offers." Defendant: "Can you do $40,000?" Plaintiff: "I could do $46,000." Defendant: "Ok." Plaintiff: "Are you wanting to purchase it?" Defendant: "Yes" --- Okay, now I'll provide the two reasons this should not be considered an Offer: (A) This entire conversation consists of hypotheticals - "I can do x" and "Could you do y?" - not an unequivocal, non-vague, unambiguous statement. (B) Even if we pretend that the entire conversation consisted of "I will do x" and "Will you do y?", the entire conversation cannot be considered a single statement. There is no clear statement of terms (for example, "I will pay $46k for the plot"). Finally, the precedent set by this decision is extremely dangerous. This just set a conversation of hypotheticals as a binding contract. Any statement of ability could now be seen as a legal Offer, and presumably, even an entire legal contract. I mean no disrespect to my colleagues on the Supreme Court, but this is frankly ridiculous.

11. Because the Offer is present, Acceptance occurred when the Defendant said "ok" and "yes I'm ready to buy."
12. Loss of Enjoyment in Redmont does not apply because no evidence was provided that showed the Plaintiff can no longer enjoy certain activities in the same way due to these actions.

IV. VERDICT
The Federal Court hereby rules in favor of the Plaintiff, and grants a partial Prayer for Relief.

The Federal Court orders the Defendant to purchase C010 from the Plaintiff for $46,000 in accordance with the contract.

If the Defendant fails to do so within 72 hours, the Plaintiff should report it to the Department of Justice, and they shall fine the Defendant $46,000 and unfine the Plaintiff the same amount, and transfer the plot C010 to the Defendant.

The Federal Court thanks both parties for their time.

EDIT: Added the verdict background