Lawsuit: Dismissed Waterskichamp v. The Department of Health [2021] FCR 65

[waterskichamp]

IN THE COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


WATERSKICHAMP,
Plaintiff

v.

SICSPOTI and
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH,
Defendants

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendants as follows:

Sicspoti and the Department of Health have demonstrated ordinary negligence in their maintenance and operation of the Department of Health store. Failure to operate and maintain the store according to the posted regulation within the store detracts from the player's ability to engage in normal business activities in a fruitful and uninterrupted manner. Additionally, this failure constitutes a material breach of contract, implied in-fact.

WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF

I. PARTIES
1. Waterskichamp
2. Sicspoti
3. Department of Health

II. FACTS
1. Waterskichamp, herein referred to as Plaintiff, is a new player to the server and like others is eager to foster new wealth, and employ his capital towards a future business. In search of creating said wealth, Plaintiff scoured the Player shops and department stores for opportunities to sell his own commodities, as well as profit from arbitraging player shops and the Government run stores. Plaintiff happened upon the Department of Health store where he found chest shops with profitable normal and arbitrage opportunities, namely Melon, paper, and sugar. These shops are maintained by the Secretary of the DOH, Sicspoti.
2. The Secretary's obligation to maintain the chest shops can be seen in Exhibit 1.
3. Defendants obligation to regulate the chest shops in a reasonable manner is shown in Exhibit 2.
4. Upon finding this opportunity, Plaintiff promptly purchased several hundred dollars worth of sugar cane and melon to engage in a profitable, legal business transaction on 5/18/2021.
5. After converting some of the sugar cane into sugar, and preparing to sell his items, Plaintiff was given the notice that the chest shop was full. Of course, it is the most profitable trade, so Plaintiff tried other shops in the store. Paper, iron, sugar, and melon were all full. Please see Exhibits 3,4,5,&6.
6. Plaintiff waited a few hours to see if the Department would empty said chests, but the chests remained full through the evening.
7. The next morning, the 19th of May 2021, Plaintiff attempted to sell his goods again. However the chests remained unemptied despite the Secretary's recent presence on the server. See Exhibit 7.
8. As of 4PM EST on the 19th, the chests remain full.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. The Department of Health maintains that the store will be regulated "periodically as per Dept. demand" (Exhibit 2). A reasonable person would infer that the demand to sell listed items (paper, sugar, iron, melon, etc.) would require more frequent maintenance than what Plaintiff had observed in the 48 hours prior to his claim. Defendants' failure to fulfill their obligation to maintain the store as per Department posting constitutes an infraction of ordinary negligence. The claim for ordinary negligence is founded in the 2007 Hofstra Law Review, "The Five Elements of Negligence," by David G. Owen (cited below). The review discusses "the harm that negligence may cause to nonphysical interests, especially emotional harm and pure economic loss." Important to this claim, the paper ascertains the presence of negligence provided the following five components are met:
a) Duty: The Department of Health and the Secretary of Health both have a duty to fulfill their obligations, namely maintaining the store per the posted requirements. The defendants are bound by the preexisting standard to avoid imposing undue risks of personal or financial injury.
b) Breach: Defendants' breached their duty to Plaintiff and the entire citizenship of the commonwealth by failing to abide by the standards and obligations set forth by and for the Department and the Secretary role.
c) Cause in Fact: "Before negligence law assigns the responsibility to a defendant for a Plaintiff's harm, it demands that the plaintiff establish a cause-and-effect relationship between the negligence and harm." Simply put, the Defendants' failure to behave with the required, ordinary level of prudence when fulfilling their elected and imposed obligations establishes the negligence that in effect led to Plaintiff's financial injury. Had the Defendants fulfilled their obligation to empty the chest shop and maintain an operational facility within a reasonable amount of time, Plaintiff would not have been left "holding the bag." In effect, the Defendants' negligence deceived Plaintiff into entering a transaction that results in lost opportunity and certain financial damages.
d) Proximate Cause: This element "addresses [] the question of whether logic, fairness, policy, and practicality, the defendant ought to be held legally accountable for plaintiff's harm." Logically, the chests should be emptied frequently, even multiple times a day (especially given their small size). In regard to the fairness of the matter, is it fair for Plaintiff to be left with a financial loss and foregone opportunity to profit as a result of Defendants' actions (or lack thereof)? Any reasonable citizen of the commonwealth can see the disregard of Department policy.
e) Harm: Plaintiff suffered financial damage in the form of financial loss (having to sell attempted arbitrage items at a loss) and foregone opportunity (the possible profits to be made had Defendants completed their obligations in a reasonable manner).
As demonstrated above, the claim of negligence on part of the Defendants is well founded in theory and in fact.
2. Defendants' failure to regulate and maintain the store in accordance with government policy constitutes a material breach of contract. Defendants' posting of Department maintenance policy and the available, ready access to the store created a contract, implied in-fact, between the Department of Health (inherently the Secretary) and the Citizens of the Commonwealth. The fact of the matter is that Defendants have an inherent duty-to-perform in accordance with the posted regulations and policy. Failure to do so not only constitutes a breach of contract between the Department and the Citizens, but requires that affected parties be made whole to the situation.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. Nominal damages of $100 (noting that Plaintiff is in the right).
2. Compensatory damages of $6,427.2 awarded to Plaintiff. This includes the return of the financial damages actually suffered by Plaintiff of $360 and the foregone arbitrage profit as a result of Defendants' negligence and breach of $6,067.2.
3. Defendants' diligence in maintaining reasonable inventory levels for the sale of goods; Potentially including the use of hoppers or larger chests to facilitate larger and more frequent transactions.

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 19th day of May 2021.


Citation:
Owen, David G. (2007) "The Five Elements of Negligence," Hofstra Law Review: Vol. 35: Iss. 4, Article 1. Available at: http://scholarlycommons.law.hofstra.edu/hlr/vol35/iss4/1

 

[bubbarc]

IN THE COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO DISMISS

Waterskichamp
Plaintiff

v.

The Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant

Case no: 05-2021-19

MOTION TO DISMISS
Defendant move that the complaint in this case be dismissed, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:
1. The Defendant has no legal obligation to empty the chests, instead they are meant to supply the department of health and are run by them for that reason, while the claim that this is breach of contract is interesting the sign is at the department of environment and recreation building as you can see by the color pallet and the chest shop signs, with the department of health having no such sign, in fact, as the plaintiff himself notes, there is a hologram saying "Chests are emptied periodically as per Dept. demand" in both the department of environment and recreation and department of health buildings
2. If this case is adjourned in favor of the plaintiff it would be extremely damaging to private businesses who would also be bound by the precedent set by this case and would be forced to near constantly watch their chest shops or set up large automatic storage systems in fear of being sued
3. The plaintiff could have easily sold to somebody else
4. The plaintiff did not loose any money from this, he was just unable to gain more from selling to the defendant, which he could easily do when the chests are emptied "as per Dept. demand"
5. The plaintiff's argument that the defense had needed to empty out the chests to suit the demand of the department is purely speculation

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 nineteenth day of May 2021

 

[waterskichamp]

IN THE COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO DISMISS

Waterskichamp
Plaintiff

v.

The Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant

Case no: 05-2021-19

RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS

1. Defendants ascertain no legal obligation to empty the chests and as a result allege no breach of contract. The nature of Plaintiff’s claim alleges that the contract is implied in-fact. Therefore, it is important to look at the facts: Defendants are responsible for the maintenance of the Department of Health item shop. Said shop, as one of the few shops supporting the government, has the role of purchasing items from players. In fact, it has the inherent obligation of purchasing items from players as per the article posted by the Owning Authority on a Government sponsored website under the article “Guide – Making Money.” This guide notes, “You can sell basic items to the government in some of the Department buildings.” The guide does not state that if the chests are full, the duty of the Department is relaxed. This article was authored and posted by the Owner of the server who maintains supreme authority and power over all three branches of the government. Per the Constitution, the head of the Department is the Secretary. This applies to all departments. Though not all Departments have shops, every other Department explicitly states that the shops are run by the Secretary and the DCT even states that the shops are emptied at set times. Given that two out of three Secretaries are explicitly responsible for the maintenance of the shops, a reasonable observer would infer that the same role would apply to the final shop even though not expressly written. For Defendants to allege Department demand does not constitute the frequent discharge of the shop chests suggests two things. First it suggests that Defendants’ actions are in violation of the owner’s own literature on the very basic nature of the server. Second though mostly founded in speculation, this suggests that Defendants are failing in their other obligations to the server, namely providing health equipment to an entire population of citizens. Defendants cannot seriously ascertain that a handful of single chests full of basic items are enough to supply the Commonwealth with the health products and items needed to regulate an entire populations’ health. At the very least, Defendants could make the effort to instill preventative measures, should there be a server-wide pandemic or something of the like. As a result of these facts, the formation of a contract implied in-fact is appropriate. The chest shops were designed by the Owner to accept basic items from the players. Per the holographic writing in combination with written notice, the prices are low at these shops to “encourage” player-to-player trading. The shops are not meant to mandate player-to-player trading of these items, though that’s what the Defendants are inferring. As such, the claim that there is a breach of contract implied in-fact stands.
2. Defendants are confusing Government obligations with the independent, free market. An outcome in favor of Plaintiff merely makes him whole and sets the precedent that the Secretaries of Departments are required to fulfill all of their obligations, not just the ones that are convenient. The idea that citizens would be held accountable in the same manner that elected officials are held to is absurd and an insult to the Judicial system. Additionally, Defendants are speculating that the outcome of this case would require “constant watch” of chest shops, when Plaintiff is merely asking for the daily clearing of these items. Defendants’ superlative suggestion has no basis and should be irrelevant to this court. Finally, the worry of “large automatic storage systems” is another extreme suggestion of the Defendants designed to frame the Plaintiff’s claim as outlandish. Defendants’ could instill any number of solutions to solve the issue including make the chest a double chest, creating an infinite sign to sell to (as many servers due to accommodate a growing population), or simply emptying the chest once or twice per day. Regardless of the ultimate outcome, the court should not concern itself with the defendants’ outlandish attempts to paint the Plaintiff’s claims as unreasonable through their use of extreme examples.
3. As the original motion explains, the Plaintiff acquired goods to sell in a standard arbitrage opportunity. The opportunity was not present at other chest shops and attempting to dismiss the Plaintiff’s claim on the basis of “The plaintiff could have easily sold to somebody else” is akin to the idea that Enron should not be held accountable because investors could have bought another company’s stock, or that robbers should not be held accountable because the victim could have taken another route home. The fact of the matter is that Plaintiff engaged in an arbitrage opportunity that by every measure would have been successful had the Defendants upheld their responsibilities and obligations laid forth in the original motion and supplemented by items above.
4. The Defendants’ claim that Plaintiff did not lose any money is incorrect. As stated in the original claim, Plaintiff incurred concrete damages of $360 and lost a far greater opportunity, estimated to be worth over $6000.
5. The Plaintiff never speculated that the Department demand requires that the chests be emptied. The basis of the Owner-authored guide on “Making Money” published on a government sponsored website instills that the Department’s shop has the role to supply the citizens an outlet to sell basic items. The imposition is not that the Department’s demand for these items was never enough to warrant their empty, it is that the demand for the Department’s shop as an outlet was high enough to warrant the shop maintenance. Not to mention that the idea that “the Department’s demand for the items” has been zero for the past 48 hours at least (who knows when they were last emptied) further strengthens the argument that the demand is for the shop, not from the shop; further implying the scope of the Department of Health.
6. Defendants never mentioned the foremost claim of their ordinary negligence that is entirely founded in fact and supported consistently by precedent and academic law review journals.

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 nineteenth day of May 2021

 

[bubbarc]

Objection, not only did he fail to list what he is saying as objections and instead as a motion to dismiss there is also the following
1. Server guides are made and maintained by the staff and shouldn't be seen as legally admissible, the other two departments also work in construction and landscaping respectively, have a lot higher of a budget, and have far more of a workload consuming more items, the fact that you are alleging that the secretary is guilty of obstruction of an emergency service with zero evidence simply due to a misinterpretation of what I said (which was that there wasn't demand in the department to empty it,) is unwarranted, and my points there still stand with those in mind
2. Any shop which has similar signage could and would be held to this precedent, maybe not by you but most definitely by other lawyers
3. That was mostly just a throwaway claim anyways to point out a clear flaw in your logic, it's not like the department of health forced you to not sell your items, yet you made another mistake, you didn't loose anything, no items, no money, the fact you are equating this to robbery and (if I'm correct, I've never heard this case) fraud is uncalled for, furthermore this wasn't a future barring from selling to them, as soon as the department demand is high enough then it will be emptied and you can sell to it to get your money, however the inventory cap also serves to help keep players from bankrupting departments, your claim for $6,000 would destroy the department budget for the rest of the month and make other departments suffer
4. Your prayer makes no attempt to trade the items, you are asking for money with no exchange
5. A owner authored guide is not legally admissible as it's not been signed into law, furthermore the hologram says as the department needs it, not as the public needs to sell to it
6. Fact and precedent from outside the server, while it is used to serve as a guideline for it on the server, is not a fact nor precedent on the server therefore shouldn't be treated as such, and the alleged "facts and precedent" from outside the server you are bringing up are also related to a law that is non-existent on the server

 

[waterskichamp]

Your honor, Defendants' objection should be overruled. Plaintiff's response to the Motion to Dismiss need not be formatted as objections as it is merely a response. Additionally, Defendants' motion to dismiss and Plaintiff's Response should be the only information taken into account when deciding whether to Dismiss the case or allow it to proceed. The Plaintiff moves to strike Defendants response to Plaintiff's response to the motion to dismiss from the court record. Any information not included in the motion to dismiss, should have no weight on the court's decision to grant or deny the motion.

 

[bubbarc]

Objection, firstly your request for it to be overruled is out of turn, secondly you formatted it like a motion to dismiss yourself implying you are requesting your own case dismissed, thirdly I have not brought up any new evidence not included in the motion to dismiss or your own objection/filing

 

[waterskichamp]

To the best of my knowledge there is no provided format for a response to a Motion to Dismiss. I entitled the response as a response and it should be treated as such. The claim that my response is inappropriate is unfounded. I was merely stating that your Response to the Motion was out of turn and that the court should disregard any new information that may be provided in it. The only thing that the court should consider is your Motion to Dismiss, the original claim, and the Plaintiff's response.

 

[Element]

Seeing as both parties have already responded to the case, I see no reason to issue a writ of summons for the Defendant. The court shall now review the points brought in the motion to dismiss and subsequent responses to make a decision on whether or not to accept or overrule the motion.

In addition, Nacholebraa is hereby found in contempt. The Department of Justice is hereby ordered to fine Nacholebraa $20 for their first offence of Contempt of Court. Please do not speak out of turn in any court case, especially those in which you are not a party.​

 

[Westray]

Due to the absence of the former Hon. Eleray, and his recent passing, I will be taking this case so that it can move forward. I would like to apologize for the delays on this case on behalf of the courts as the Chief Justice.

I will be publishing a verdict and response to the motions made on this case later today. Either party may inform the court of any updates to such case in the meantime if they wish to do so.

 

[Westray]

Verdict

While most certainly an interesting argument presented by the Plaintiff in this case - there is unfortunately no basis for this claim. I appreciate the thorough citations to american law journals, especially with esteemed publications by Hofstra Law Review, however I would like to remind the Plaintiff that this court resides in the jurisdiction of the Commonwealth of Redmont, not the United States, and the application of real-life citations don't particularly pose relevance here.

The court will be accepting the motion to dismiss, noting;
(a) No law obligates the Department to maintain their chests.
(b) Department chestshops maintain the purpose of supplying such department, and as noted in the "per Dept. demand" remark - all claims made by the Plaintiff in regards to how much supplies the Department truly needs is based on speculation, and not fact.
(c) The Plaintiff had no material loss - those materials that the Plaintiff sought to sell to such chestshops would still be in possession of the Plaintiff and could be sold elsewhere.

To simply mandate Secretaries to empty chests on an often basis - even when such Department supply exceeds its current demand, would be detrimental to the Department's budget and to the supply chain of the latter. There is simply no legal basis to obligate the emptying of such. Therefore, this case is hereby dismissed.