Lawsuit: Adjourned totemundying v. Town of Aventura [2024] DCR 40

Status
Not open for further replies.
ilovemyself_64818

ilovemyself_64818

Citizen
.LinedShelf27892
.LinedShelf27892
Attorney
Joined
Aug 6, 2024
Messages
33
Case Filing



IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


totemundying(Represented by titan law)
Plaintiff

v.
The Town of Aventura
Defendant


COMPLAINT


On September 3, 2024, the Plaintiff participated in a plot auction, placing a bid as is their right. After publicly revealing in-game chat their observation that their bid contributed to the auction price reaching $20,000, the Plaintiff was banned without any legal justification or due process to contest the action. The Mayor cited the Plaintiff’s in-game chats regarding the auction price as the basis for the ban. This ban severely impacted the Plaintiff's business operations and professional reputation, especially as real estate auctions are central to their business. The Defendant's actions appear arbitrary and lacking lawful authority.


I. PARTIES


  1. Totemundying (Plaintiff)
  2. KattoTheGatto, the Mayor of Aventura, in their official capacity
  3. The Town of Aventura

II. FACTS


1. On September 3 , 2024, the Plaintiff Participated in an auction by placing a bid for a price as is his right


2. As soon as the Plaintiff publicly disclosed in game chat that he participated in a c plot auction and the plaintiff also disclosed in game his observation that because of his bidding the ultimate price in auction increased to $20000


3. The Plaintiff was not provided with any legal justification or due process to contest the ban Instead the mayor just attached the Plaintiffs in game chats in which the plaintiff disclosed his observation regarding the ultimate price of the plot after auction


4. The ban significantly harmed the Plaintiff's business operations and professional reputation, as real estate auctions are a primary source of business for the Plaintiff.


5. The actions commited by the Defendant held no lawful authority


III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF


1.The defendant did not have any legal standing under any act of congress or Article of constitution to disbar the plaintiff from participating in real estate auctions


2. The Defendant’s arbitrary decision-making caused reputational and financial harm to the Plaintiff.


IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF


The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:


1. A court order lifting the ban on the Plaintiff's participation in real estate auctions in Aventura,


2. $10000 in Punitive damages For lost business opportunities and damages to the Plaintiff’s reputation.

3. $5000 in legal fees
P-1 Plaintiff's observation in game chat
aaa.png

P-2- Plaintiff suspension notice
Screenshot_2024-09-02_at_12.14.28_PM.png
 
Last edited:
pgyfUC4.png



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

@Mask3D_WOLF (AG) is required to appear before the District Court in the case of totemundying v. Town of Aventura [2024] DCR 38 Failure to appear within 72 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.​
 
Unseatedduke1 said:
pgyfUC4.png



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

@Mask3D_WOLF (AG) is required to appear before the District Court in the case of totemundying v. Town of Aventura [2024] DCR 38 Failure to appear within 72 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.​
Click to expand...

Your Honor, I do not believe we have jurisdiction to defend towns in court.
 
Towns fall under the executive branch. Please provide standing in law that you can’t or don’t.
 
Unseatedduke1 said:
Towns fall under the executive branch. Please provide standing in law that you can’t or don’t.
Click to expand...
“(a) Defending the national legal interest.” is the responsibility of the DOJ. Towns are not the nation of Redmont, have decisions that are autonomous from Redmont (such as hosting separate auctions), and do not fall under the national legal interest. This is like saying that a nation has the responsibility to defend a province in court.

Towns are overseen by the Commonwealth. They are not run by the Commonwealth. They do not express the views of the Commonwealth.
 
pgyfUC4.png




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

@Alexander P. Love (Legal Team for Town) is required to appear before the District Court in the case of totemundying v. Town of Aventura [2024] DCR 38 Failure to appear within 72 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.​
 

Answer to Complaint


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

totemundying
Plaintiff

v.

Town of Aventura
Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
1. The defense AFFIRMS that "on September 3 , 2024, the Plaintiff participated in an auction by placing a bid for a price" but DISPUTES that it "is his right".
2. The defense posits that fact two makes no intelligible sense.
3. The defense DISPUTES that "The Plaintiff was not provided with any legal justification or due process to contest the ban..." as the plaintiff was provided both a reason (supported by D-02 and P-01) and a way to make amends/contest the ban (supported by P-02).
4. The defense DISPUTES that "The ban significantly harmed the Plaintiff's business operations and professional reputation, as real estate auctions are a primary source of business for the Plaintiff" as the plaintiff has offered no evidence of this and has even stated that he "only bids on [plots] to jack up the price", not to conduct business.
5. The defense DISPUTES that "The actions committed by the Defendant held no lawful authority" and will be outlined below.

II. DEFENSES
1. The defense, per the Aventura auction guidelines (D-01), which serves as a legally binding contract, reserves the right to restrict people from participating in auctions. This is a contractual provision and therefore is applicable to the plaintiff. He has agreed to that term by initially bidding on an auction in the past.
2. The Town of Aventura has no legal obligation to let anyone participate in its auctions, as this is not a right or privilege entitled by law.
3. Even if a Constitutional right could be extrapolated to protect a right of the plaintiff to participate in an auction, the Constitution provides that reasonable limits may be made that are justified. Expressing malicious intent to troll auctions and bid solely to raise the price for other bidders provides justified and reasonable grounds to impose a limit on his rights, if he had any in this case, which the defense contends he does not.

III. EVIDENCE

1726461382903.png
1726461400945.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 15th day of September, 2024.

 

Attachments

  • 1726461405008.png
    1726461405008.png
    35.7 KB · Views: 63
We will now enter a 3-day discovery period. Once it concludes, the plaintiff will have 72 hours to submit their opening statement, followed by 72 hours for the defense to file theirs.
 
ilovemyself_64818 said:
The ban significantly harmed the Plaintiff's business operations and professional reputation, as real estate auctions are a primary source of business for the Plaintiff.
Click to expand...

Objection


Perjury

As shown by the plaintiff’s own words in D-02, the statement that it harmed business operations is necessarily false.



Motion


Your honor, I move to dismiss this case under lack of claim and lack of personal standing. The plaintiff did not suffer damages as they were simply trolling, as admitted by them. With no damages, there is no standing and this case can be dismissed sua sponte. Furthermore, the plaintiff made no actual legal claim, simply alluding to some undefined right. The claim must be grounded in actual law, otherwise this case must be dismissed under rule 5.5.

 
ilovemyself_64818 said:
Your Honour,
Plaintiff wishes to drop this case
Click to expand...
The defense requests that the motion be reviewed first in the event this case would be dismissed with prejudice.
 
The plaintiff does NOT wish to drop the case your honor, there was some miscommunication.
 
essx said:
The plaintiff does NOT wish to drop the case your honor, there was some miscommunication.
Click to expand...
Your honor, the motion was already made and it should be resolved accordingly. The plaintiff is wasting the Court’s time.
 
Your honor, I should not be punished for my lawyers misunderstanding as his highness AlexanderLove is suggesting
 
The plaintiff has 24 hours to respond to the motion to dismiss.
 
Your honor, do you mean defendant? If not, I've already responded.
 
No I mean plaintiff. You need to respond to the motion to dismiss made by Mr love
 
Granted
 
Your Honour I wish to apologise on behalf of Titan Law for the delay in the response. We have recently let go of the lawyer manging this case. While I assign someone I wish to request a 48h extension. Apologies for the in proceeding.
 
Your Honor, I would also like to ask that the Defendant has a new lawyer assigned as AlexanderLove has quit Redmont and won't be pursuing this case
 
24hr extension granted l.
 
Alexander P. Love said:

Objection


Perjury

As shown by the plaintiff’s own words in D-02, the statement that it harmed business operations is necessarily false.



Motion


Your honor, I move to dismiss this case under lack of claim and lack of personal standing. The plaintiff did not suffer damages as they were simply trolling, as admitted by them. With no damages, there is no standing and this case can be dismissed sua sponte. Furthermore, the plaintiff made no actual legal claim, simply alluding to some undefined right. The claim must be grounded in actual law, otherwise this case must be dismissed under rule 5.5.

Click to expand...
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - Breach Of Procedure

The Defendant Failed to format the motion to dismiss as required by the courts.

Response To Motion To Dismiss

Your Honor, the Defendant’s motion to dismiss should be denied as the Plaintiff has adequately established both standing and a valid legal claim. Despite the Defendant's assertion that the Plaintiff suffered no damages, the injury in fact requirement for standing can include non-monetary harms such as reputational damage, emotional distress, or interference with rights, all of which are alleged here.
 
Updated to DCR 40 due to a name duplication

Magistrate pending appointment
 
Can we please have someone assigned so as to not violate my clients write to a speedy trial.
 
Alexander P. Love said:

Objection


Perjury

As shown by the plaintiff’s own words in D-02, the statement that it harmed business operations is necessarily false.

Click to expand...
Overruled. Even if this was necessarily false, no intent was shown.

Alexander P. Love said:

Motion


Your honor, I move to dismiss this case under lack of claim and lack of personal standing. The plaintiff did not suffer damages as they were simply trolling, as admitted by them. With no damages, there is no standing and this case can be dismissed sua sponte. Furthermore, the plaintiff made no actual legal claim, simply alluding to some undefined right. The claim must be grounded in actual law, otherwise this case must be dismissed under rule 5.5.

Click to expand...
Overruled. The right the Plaintiff mentions can be incurred from Part IV, §33, Clause XIII of the Constitution, specifically the right "to equal protection and equal benefit of the law without unfair discrimination". Furthermore, verdict of the case Lawsuit: Adjourned - smokeyybunnyyy v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2024] FCR 103 states "Every department within the executive branch has a duty of care to uphold its constitutional obligations. For the Department of Construction and Transport, this includes the responsibility to conduct auctions fairly and in strict accordance with its guidelines." While DCT is not the executing authority in this case, but the Town of Aventura, the Town is still a part of the executive branch, and must adhere to these points. The Plaintiff convinces me that, if only that, the primary damage here is declining to the Plaintiff their right to post a bid under same conditions as anyone else. The application of that right does not hang on the intent of bidding - whatever the supposed motive may be, if the bidder has sufficient funds, they should be able to bid.

dodrio3 said:
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - Breach Of Procedure

The Defendant Failed to format the motion to dismiss as required by the courts.
Click to expand...
Overruled.

I am opening Discovery which will last 72 hours. As this case has been dragging on, I would like to see both sides respecting imposed deadlines.
 
I have been appointed as Aventuras Chief Counsel a few days ago so I will from now on be representing Aventura in this case
 
Please provide proof of your appointment.
 
I call on the Plaintiff to deliver their opening statement in the next 72 hours. After the Plaintiff posts their opening, the Defendant shall have 72 hours to submit their opening.
 
The Plaintiff requests a 48h extension.
 

Opening Statement


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OPENING STATEMENT

I will be filing the opening statement on behalf of the representing firm. (Titan Law)

Your Honour,

The Aventura government has taken actions to restrict the rights of a Citizen, without the legal right to do so. The defense makes claims that the plaintiff 'entered into a contract', which is false. This ban on bidding effects the plaintiff's job as a realtor, as you can see in P-1 that is his job. The inability to bid for property effects his ability to sell said property. While the actions of the plaintiff may be unsavory, but so long as they are bidding valid amounts, they are incurring the same risk as any other bidder. The plaintiff made no efforts to force other people to make bids against his.

According to the Contracts Act.

End

Act of Congress Thread 'Contracts Act'

House: 8-0-0
Senate: 4-0-1

A
BILL
To
Establish a better foundation for contract law.

The people of the Commonwealth of Redmont, through their elected Representatives in the Congress and the force of law ordained to that Congress by the people through the constitution, do hereby enact the following provisions into law:​

1 - Short Title and Enactment
(1) This Act may be cited as the 'Contracts Act.'
(2) This Act shall be enacted immediately upon its signage.
(3) This Act has been authored by Sen. xEndeavour.
(4) This Act has been co-sponsored by v__d

2 -...

4.2 - A valid contract is formed when the following legal test is met:
(a) Offer. An offer is a clear and unequivocal communication expressing a party's willingness to enter into a contract, either explicitly stated or reasonably inferred from the circumstances.
(b) Acceptance. Acceptance is the positive and unambiguous response to an offer communicated to the offeror, mirroring the terms of the offer and conveyed through various means.
(c) Consideration. Consideration, an essential element, involves the exchange of something of value between parties, with sufficiency though not necessarily adequacy. Consideration can be tangible or intangible.
(d) Intent. Parties must demonstrate a clear intention to create legal obligations for the contract to be valid.
(e) Capacity. Parties entering into a contract must possess the legal capacity to do so. Players with low playtime may lack the capacity to fairly enter a contract

This supposed contract fails to make itself clear as an "Offer". In order to view this document.
  1. Go to the Aventura #real-estate forum channel. From here people are able to make bids, they are NOT forced to read anything before doing so.
  2. Hover over what appears to be a book and check mark, and it reads 'Post Guidelines'. Not only did the plaintiff NOT make a post, they have NEVER made a posting. The plaintiff only ever interacted by way of bidding. In addition, these are labeled as 'guidelines', not rules, not laws, and certainly not as a 'contract'
  3. Click the book, and now you will see a condensed version of these guidelines. You will see, in bold, 'auctioneers rules'. One could easily assume these guidelines were reserved for those posting auctions at this point.
  4. Click View All. Finally, we can see the entirety of the document and all the rules outlines for bidders as presented in D-01

At no point does this document serve as a 'clear and unequivocal communication expressing a party's willingness to enter into a contract', it is only after exploration of curiosity or happenstance that one finds themselves viewing the bidders rules. There was also no demonstration of a clear intention to create legal obligations, simply a prayer you'd read these 'guidelines'.

 
The Defendant has 72 hours from the moment the opening was posted by the Plaintiff to post their opening. Deadlines remain in effect.
 
OPENING STATEMENT

Your Honor, today we will demonstrate that the actions taken by the Town of Aventura were not only lawful but essential to uphold fairness and integrity in the bidding process that serves our community.

The plaintiff claims that his rights have been unjustly restricted and argues that the Town lacks the legal authority to impose these necessary regulations. However, we will show that these measures are designed to create a level playing field for all participants, including realtors like the plaintiff. They are not arbitrary; they are safeguards that protect the integrity of the bidding process and ultimately serve the best interests of our community.

The plaintiff also contends that he did not enter into a contract. We will present clear evidence that the guidelines governing the Aventura real estate channel establish mandatory rules for participation that all bidders must adhere to. These guidelines, which include specific "Bidders Rules," are not mere suggestions; they form the essential framework that governs all bidding activities, ensuring transparency and fairness.

As we proceed, we will illustrate how the Town's actions were not only justified but necessary to maintain the trust and integrity of our community's bidding process. We ask you to consider the evidence carefully and recognize the importance of these regulations in fostering a fair competitive environment for all.
 
As neither the Plaintiff nor Defendant provided witnesses they would like to see summoned, we are moving forward to closing statements.

The deadlines are the same as they were for opening statements. The Plaintiff has 72 hours to provide their closing, and the Defendant has 72 hours to post a response immediately after the Plaintiff.
 

Closing Statement


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CLOSING STATEMENT

Your honour,


The plaintiffs ability to place bids within the Aventura real-estate was restricted. The Aventura Government did so under the authority of a "contract", and not any established legal authority. I believe our opening statement encapsulates why it does not hold up as a valid contract. The Aventura 'Post Guidelines' fail to mark itself as an authoritative document, it fails to mark itself as being an immediately obvious guideline for bidders, and the Aventura Government failed to ensure it was clearly visible or recognized as "mandatory" in order to make bids. We are not contesting whether or not a town has the legal authority to enforce valid contracts. We are arguing that the 'contract' they've formed is unenforceable.

The Plaintiffs actions should not be considered 'unfair.' The plaintiff placed a bid that they had the appropriate balance to do so. The plaintiff did not coerce other bidders into bidding at a higher rate. If you take the comments of the plaintiff out of the picture, they did nothing that any other bidder did also not do. Even if the plaintiff's intent was to raise the price of the plot, they are still incurring risk, and are contractually obligated to pay the amount listed.

These cases makes it clear that a contractual obligation is made when an auctioneer makes an auction, and the bidder bids. Of which, we do not contest is a valid contract. The Aventura government posted a bid thereby making an Offer, and the plaintiff made a bid indicating Acceptance if it came to be the winning bid.

Dartanboy

Lawsuit: Adjourned Post in thread 'FlyingBlocks v. dodrio3 [2023] DCR 1'

Verdict


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
VERDICT
Flying Blocks v. dodrio3 [2023] DCR 1

I. PLAINTIFF’S POSITION
1. The Defendant committed Fraud.
2. They did this by posting an auction, informing the Plaintiff they won the auction, and then failing to follow through with giving the items to the Plaintiff after the Plaintiff paid.

II. DEFENDANT’S POSITION
1. The Defendant failed to appear before the court.

III. THE COURT OPINION
1. Looking at the precedent of Ansgard_lst v. MelisaMinecrft74 [2022] FCR 11, it is clear that in general, Auctions...


AndreyMia

Lawsuit: Adjourned Post in thread 'Ansgard_Ist v. MelisaMinecrft74 [2022] FCR 11'

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

Ansgard_Ist
Plaintiff

v.

MelisaMinecrft74
Defendant

REBUTTAL
1. The plaintiff would like to argue that bids are considered contract binding by referencing Section 6 of the Foundation of Contract Law Act and rebutting the arguments made by the defence as follows:
- An offer does exist, in this case, that would be plot c-377 in exchange for $11,100.
- Ignorance of the law (or rules in this case) is not a valid defence as it is the responsibility of the bidder to understand the rules...

Z

Lawsuit: Adjourned Thread 'zLost v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2023] DCR 48'

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


zLost
Plaintiff

v.

The Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

An auction for c610 was created, and as I was interested in the plot, I bid on it and engaged in a bidding war with Bombaz2005 until I bid $13k, following which Bombaz2005 bid $13.5k (Exhibit A). I realized that Bombaz2005 did not have this money in their balance, and that their bid was invalid, as such I stopped bidding. To my surprise, after the auction, even though I notified the DCT...
  • Like
  • Aye

Banana

Lawsuit: Adjourned Post in thread 'Creepy505 V. d3froggy [2023] DCR 15'

Verdict


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Creepy505 v. d3froggy [2023] DCR 15

I. PLAINTIFF’S POSITION
1. The Plaintiff participated in an auction made by the Defendant for a plot of land.
2. The Plaintiff won the auction and the Defendant failed to respond regarding the transferring of the plot and payment.
3. The auction constitutes a legally binding contract and so the two parties are bound to the terms of its bidding.

II. DEFENSE’S POSITION
1. The Defendant failed to appear in court.

III. COURT’S OPINION
1. An auction does constitute a...



The contractual issue Aventura has is with the 'Post Guidelines'; And the obfuscated path required in order to even see Bidder's Rules, renders it an unenforceable contract for the purposes of regulating bidding.


Much like the defense, we also believe that bidding should be conducted fairly, and allow all bidders a level playing field. Which is why this complaint was made in the first place. By removing the plaintiffs ability to bid for two months, Aventura has restricted the plaintiffs ability to interact on a level playing field with other real-estate agents or bidders.

In the case Smokeyybunnyyy v. Commonwealth of Redmont, we find when considering all the above information it's clear that the Aventura bidding policy is being applied unfairly and inconsistently with the actions of other bidders. As again, the actions the plaintiff took were in reality, no different than any other bidder. Whom bids, incurs risk, and follows through on their bid if they win. Aventura lashed out against a single citizen for actions fundamentally unrelated to the sanctity of auctions.

Jakovus

Lawsuit: Adjourned Thread 'smokeyybunnyyy v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2024] FCR 103'

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION

smokeyybunnyyy (represented by Solid Law Firm)
Plaintiff

v.

Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant

Complaint
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

Your Honour,

The Plaintiff was damaged by the Commonwealth when the latter was executing an auction for an evicted plot, specifically plot C514. Through the bidding process, to ensure its validity, all parties and potential bidders must be informed equally and expeditiously of developments so that their judgement and allocation of funds remain clear...


We believe this shows that without a doubt, the Aventura government overreacted to the comments of a citizen. They lashed out against the plaintiff, banned the plaintiff from auctions for an inordinate amount of time, all while exercising authority that it had not adequately established. This time span of two months has made it hard for a realtor such as the plaintiff to find property in Aventura.


Your honour, we're not against Aventura having bidding rules, regulations, or bylaws. We simply expect, in the words of the defense "the Aventura real estate channel (to) establish mandatory rules for participation that all bidders must adhere to." Currently anyone may go there and bid, and may do so without ever having read the rules or knowing they exist.

 
The Defendant has 72 hours starting when Plaintiff posted to present their closing statement.
 
Closing Statement

Your Honor,

The plaintiffs' claims against the Aventura Government are without merit. The restrictions placed on their bidding were entirely justified and in accordance with established procedures.

Firstly, the Aventura "Post Guidelines" are a clear and unambiguous set of rules governing participation in real estate auctions within the city. These guidelines have been prominently displayed on our official discord server notices, ensuring that all potential bidders have had ample opportunity to familiarize themselves with them.

Secondly, the plaintiffs' actions were not merely "unfair" but were in direct violation of the Post Guidelines. By making disparaging remarks about other bidders and attempting to manipulate the auction process, the plaintiffs undermined the integrity of the system and created a hostile environment for other participants.
The precedent established in the multiple cases supports the Aventura's position. These cases clearly demonstrate that auction organizers have the right to enforce rules and regulations to maintain fair and orderly proceedings.

The plaintiffs' assertion that the government's actions were inconsistent with the treatment of other bidders is simply false. The restrictions imposed on the plaintiffs were a direct consequence of their own misconduct and were not applied arbitrarily.

In conclusion, the Aventura Government has acted lawfully and in the best interests of the community. The restrictions placed on the plaintiffs' bidding were necessary to protect the integrity of the auction process and ensure a fair and equitable environment for all participants. We respectfully request that the court dismiss the plaintiffs' claims in their entirety.
 
Last edited:

Verdict


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
totemundying v. Town of Aventura [2024] DCR 40.

I. PLAINTIFF'S POSITION
1. The Guidelines are not a legal and enforceable contract
2. The plaintiff's actions were in line with all other bidders
3. Aventura lacks lawful authority to limit the plaintiff from auctions.
4. This limitation violates the plaintiff's rights

II. DEFENDANT'S POSITION
1. Aventura has the right to restrict people from bidding as set out inside their guidelines
2. Aventura has no legal obligation to allow citizens to bid on auctions
3. Even if they do have a legal obligation this limitation placed on the plaintiff is a justified limit.
4. The Plaintiff violated the Posted Guidelines

III. THE COURT OPINION
This case has three issues that need to be addressed. Whether the Aventura Auction Guidelines are enforceable, whether Aventura has a legal obligation to allow people to bid and whether the plaintiff violated these guidelines.

Are Aventura's Auction Guidelines Enforceable?

Firstly, I agree with the Plaintiff's argument that the Guidelines are not a legal contract, but this is not what the guidelines are trying to be. The guidelines are meant to be the rules that bidders must follow. As the DCT and DOC have almost identical guidelines for auctions in the DC discord and courts time and time again have enforced them, I must do the same for Aventura's Guidelines as they are under the same laws. Aventura's Auction Guidelines are enforceable.

Does Aventura have a Legal Obligation to Allow People to Bid?

This is plain and simple. Right XIII states every citizen is entitled to equal protection and benefit therefore if an auction is open to the public as it seems this one was, they must allow all citizen to bid unless prescribed by reasonable limitation. Now these guidelines are a reasonable limitation as how almost identical guidelines in DCT and DOC auctions are also reasonable limitations.

Did the Plaintiff violate the Aventura Auction Guidelines?

I do not believe the plaintiff violated them as the defense claims. Looking at D-01 there is nothing talking about the motives or reasoning a bidder might have that prevents them from bidding. Everything listed under the "Bidder Rules" in D-01 the plaintiff did follow.

Due to the plaintiff not violating the Guidelines, the limitation given to him is not reasonable and therefore unconstitutional. If Adventura would like to enforce this policy in the future I would suggest they add it clearly in their guidelines.

IV. DECISION
The District Court rules in favor of the Plaintiff.

The District Court thanks all involved.

 
Last edited:
(edit, accidentally said I ruled for the defense instead of the plaintiff)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top