Lawsuit: Adjourned northeastprince v. EnioCat [2021] DCR 5

Westray

Westray

Citizen
Former President
Commerce Department
Redmont Bar Assoc.
Supporter
Willow Resident
Westray
Westray
attorney
Joined
Jun 15, 2020
Messages
1,028
IN THE COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


northeastprince (Westray Representing)
Plaintiff

v.

EnioCat
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF

The Defendant, EnioCat, acted in bad faith, repeatedly pretending to bid $200 during my auction. As a small business owner trying to start my first auction, this has been a tough start for my business. This mislead other bidders as they had trouble figuring out what the bid was at, due to the spam-misleading claims by the Defendant.

I. PARTIES
1. northeastprince, a citizen of Redmont, and owner of Accurate Arms.
2. EnioCat, a citizen of Redmont.

II. FACTS
1. On March 24, 2021, the Plaintiff held an auction with a starting bid of $200, and a minimum increase of $20, in the #northeastprince channel on the DC Bid Server.
2. The Defendant, EnioCat, started to repeatedly bid $200 in the auction, even after other bidders had brought the price higher.
3. The Defendant stated that they were bidding $200 over 10 times in the auction channel.
4. The Defendant refused to stop claiming they were bidding $200 multiple times by the Plaintiff and other bidders.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. The Defendant willfully and maliciously attempted to obstruct the business functions of the Plaintiff by misleading bidders in the auction.
2. The Defendant stated that they were bidding $200 over 10 times in the respective auction channel, and if they properly followed the minimum increase, they would be subject to pay over $400 ($200 + 10*$20).

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. An injunction to prohibit the Defendant from bidding on the Plaintiff's auctions in the future.
2. Compensation of $400 for the lost profits as a result of the Defendant's obstructive actions.

Representation Evidence.PNG
Exhibit 1.png
Exhibit 2.png
Exhibit 3.png
Exhibit 4.png

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 March 2021
 
I'll write a full response later, I just don't have the braincells rn
 
Given the defendant has already responded to this suit, I see no need to summon him.

EnioCat said:
I'll write a full response later, I just don't have the braincells rn
Click to expand...
You have 48 hours to respond to this lawsuit, after which time there will be a default judgment in favour of the plaintiff. If you need longer please just say so. Legal advice can be sought from the RBA if necessary.
 
IN THE COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

northeastprince (Westray Representing)
Plaintiff

v.

EnioCat
Defendant

Case no: 03-2021-24

I ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
I do not contest the facts of the case, nor to my being distruptive. I would simply seek the defendant to "chill out" on their demands. I have done them no real harm, other than pissing them off.

II DEFENCES
The Plaintiff claims that my spamming led to "$400 for the lost profits". This seems unlikely to me. The final bid was $620, which was made after the spamming concluded. Those interested seemingly were not dissauded by my actions.

Additionally, the Plaintiff claims that this $400 is owed, due to each "$200" message counting as a bid increasing by the minimum amount each time. However, these bids were clearly not serious, and any reasonable party would not have taken them as valid, given how far below the current bid they were.

Finally, even if the above is taken as completely false, there is the fact that a $400 bid would not have won the auction, and would never have been owed, whether the bids were serious or not.

Screenshot 2021-03-25 213844.png

1616723384246.png

finalbid.png

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 25 day of March, 2021
 
Unless there are serious objections, I'm happy to move onto closing statements. In these statements you can refer to each other's respective submissions.

I ask that the plaintiff provide their closing statement first, with a subsequent statement by the defendant. If possible, please have these statements submitted within 48 hours.
 
Thank you, your honour.

The Plaintiff claims that my spamming led to "$400 for the lost profits". This seems unlikely to me. The final bid was $620, which was made after the spamming concluded. Those interested seemingly were not dissauded by my actions.
Click to expand...
The Plaintiff's actions of claiming to bid $200 over 10 times had an indirect result on my client's auction. Not only did it create a disorganized, rambunctious, and destructive environment to the bid channel of my client, but it also irritated and deterred potential bidders. As noted in the evidence shown by the Defendant, bidders were already left confused, with dimitre14 stating "the last number I saw was $400" when the auction was at $600. Due to the destructive behaviour of the Defendant, to maliciously damage company infrastructure (the auction channel) by pushing irrelevant and misleading bids, the Plaintiff has clearly lost out on more potential bidders.

Additionally, the Plaintiff claims that this $400 is owed, due to each "$200" message counting as a bid increasing by the minimum amount each time. However, these bids were clearly not serious, and any reasonable party would not have taken them as valid, given how far below the current bid they were.
Click to expand...
The statements by my client asking the Defendant to refrain from falsely bidding $200 were willfully ignored. The Defendant can claim that they were a non-serious bid, however the failure to listen to the auctioneer, and continued false bids, proves a clear mens rea of an intent to mischievously harm my client and his business.

My client, northeastprince, is a small business owner, who was simply trying to make a start on his first auction. Bid channels can be an important avenue, especially for small businesses, to set up the foundations of their company infrastructure and to provide funding. In fact, some companies base their business off of auctions. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that any sort of attack to disrupt a bid channel, is not only a disruption of a bid channel, but a disruption of a business as a whole.

Furthermore, the statements made by the Defendant in this case establish a clear lack of respect for the law or for the courts, commenting "$200" as the initial response to my client's case filing.

The Defendant, EnioCat, willfully violated the terms of the DC Bid Server, and continued to harm the company infrastructure of northeastprince. He has no respect for small businesses or for the law. The claims for relief alleged by my client are within reason, seeing as he would like an recuperate at least some of the potential damages, and to prevent the Defendant from continuing with the atrocious behaviour on his auctions.

Thank you, I rest my case.
 
I mean, what do I even have to summarize? I don't feel I owe north any damages. I understand that I may have damaged our personal relationship, and I am happy to respect a request for distance from their business dealings. However, claims of owing damages, when clearly the auction was still a massive success, are preposterous. Also, to briefly respond to my opponent's claim that I have "a clear lack of respect for the law or for the courts". Yes. Yes I do.

$200
 
Ok, frick frick frick. I'm sorry. I don't want to hurt anyone's real-world feelings. I need to stop. I need to stop interacting online. Hand down whatever judgement you feel is fair, and I'll stop bothering all of you, I'm sorry.
 
Please, just whatever you want, so I can be done with this all.
 

Verdict



While disruptive to the procedure, there has been no evidence of substantive loss of business due to the actions of the defendant with the auction still being successful. However, their actions nonetheless caused distress for the plaintiff, only amplified by the fact this was their first auction. As such, I order the following:

-The defendant pay the plaintiff $50 in compensation.
-The defendant is hereby ordered to not engage with the plaintiff's auctions for a period of two weeks.



EnioCat said:
Ok, frick frick frick. I'm sorry. I don't want to hurt anyone's real-world feelings. I need to stop. I need to stop interacting online. Hand down whatever judgement you feel is fair, and I'll stop bothering all of you, I'm sorry.
Click to expand...

I appreciate your apology. I took no offence but you've got to be aware you don't know how people will perceive the kind the statements you were making. We're a positive community and it's down to all of us to keep the community positive and welcoming!
 
Alright, I have sent the money.
1616802763825.png

After this I was thinking of taking a break from server-related chatrooms anyway. The two-weeks period will be honored before I consider making a return.

I'm glad I didn't offend you, and again apologize for my brash actions, taking strangers on the internet who I have a vague connection to as friends who will put up with me being a jerk. My actions were tasteless. I hope to be back someday, after I've had some time to figure out how I'm gonna do better next time.

Thank you for your time in settling this case, and to north for helping me realize where I screwed up. I'm glad to have you as a friend.

-Enio
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top