Lawsuit: Adjourned Poisonlocket v. SainsBury's [2022] FCR 59

[xLayzur]

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION

Poisonlocket (xlayzur representing)
Plaintiff

v.

Sainsbury (BubblyBo)
Defendant

COMPLAINT
Plaintiff complains against Defendant as follows:
My client Poisonlocket received a contract for employment from Sainburys. After signing the contract, no work was provided nor an invitation to the company discords. This left my client without any work and no pay promised within the contract which was $1250/month.

I. PARTIES
1. Poisonlocket
2. Bubblybo

II. FACTS
1. Poisonlocket was offered employment from Sainsbury’s on June 15th, 2022.
2. In order to be hired for Sainsbury’s you must sign the employment contract in Poisonlocket signed on June 15th, 2022.
3. The employer breaches their own employment contract. (Exhibit-A)

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. Breach of Contract
2. No payment was sent for employment

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. $5000 paid to Poisonlocket for unemployment
2. $350 for 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 12th day of August 2022

 

[Wuutie]

This case will be moved to the Federal Court because it exceeds the $5000 prayer of relief.

 

[Krix]

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

@Bubblybo is required to appear before the Federal Court in the case of Poisonlocket v. SainBury's FCR 59 [2022]

Failure to appear within 48 hours of this summons will result in a default judgement based on the known facts of the case.

Both parties should make themselves aware of the Court Rules and Procedures, including the option of an in-game trial should both parties request one.​

 

[Krix]

Verdict

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Poisonlocket v. SainBury's FCR 59 [2022]

I. PLAINTIFF’S POSITION
- Plaintiff entered into an employment contract with Sainsbury's on the 15th of June 2022.
- Plaintiff was entitled to a salary of $1,250 a month.
- Defendant breached the contract by failing to provide work, pay the plaintiff, or invite the plaintiff to the company discord.

II. DEFENDANT’S POSITION
- Failed to appear before the court.

III. COURT’S OPINION
The Court concurs with the plaintiff's position as it is clear the defendant has breached the contract based on the known facts of this case:
- the defendant has failed to pay the plaintiff the salary they were entitled to.
- the defendant has failed to provide work for the plaintiff to carry out.

The court is satisfied to award the plaintiff their full prayer for relief including the sum amounting to $2,500 for the defendant's breach of contract.

The court believes this to be an equitable sum of compensation as the defendant outlined in the contract that the plaintiff would be liable to pay a sum of up to $75,000 should they breach the contract.

IV. VERDICT

In the case, Poisonlocket v. SainBury's FCR 59 [2022] the Court hereby rules in favor of the plaintiff.

I hereby award the plaintiff:
- $,2500 for the 2 months of unpaid salary.
- $2,500 for the defence's breach of contract.
- $350 in legal fees
___________________
Total Awarded: $5,350 to the plaintiff

I hereby order the Department of Justice to fine the defence the total amount awarded and to pay the sum to the plaintiff.
The Court thanks each party for their time. This case is now adjourned.