Lawsuit: Adjourned Yeet_Boy v. Mark_Hannah and Asssailant [2022] FCR 65

Status
Not open for further replies.
C

crystalvitamins

Citizen
Ricky_2017
Ricky_2017
Attorney
Joined
Apr 17, 2022
Messages
7
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


Yeet_Boy (represented by Ricky_2017)
Plaintiff

v.

Mark_Hannah
Asssailant
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:
The defendants (Mark_Hannah and Asssailant) were contracted to build a food court with a contract in chat.
The plaintiff paid $6500 upfront for the services.
A reasonable expectation was set that this would be completed in a timely manner, yet weeks passed without any action.
A single wall was built on the location, and the defendant (Mark_Hannah) proceeded to block the plaintiff on Discord, thus removing any possibility of the service being completed.
Therefore, the client has suffered a monetary loss of $6500.




I. PARTIES
1. Yeet_Boy
2. Mark_Hannah
3. Asssailant

II. FACTS
1. The two defendants, Mark_Hannah and Asssailant were contracted to build a food court by the plaintiff Yeet_Boy
2. The plaintiff paid the two $6500 upfront
3. Neither defendant made work on the project for multiple weeks, and it still has not been worked on (apart from a wall) a month later
4. The defendant Mark_Hannah blocked the plaintiff on Discord, severing communication between the two and thus preventing any demands for the completion of the service


III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. The plaintiff paid the defendants $6500 upfront for a service, which has not been completed within a month
2. It is reasonable to believe that no progress will be made on the building due to the severance of communication between plaintiff and defendant.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendants:
1. $6500 in reimbursement ($3250 from each defendant)
2. $500 in 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.
1. Evidence of the client being blocked by Mark_Hannah (Cyber_Green)
Image




2. Evidence of the incomplete site

Image

Image

Edit:
3: Proof of Contract in chat
1661346740114.png


Proof of Representation:
1661334700865.png

DATED: This 24th day of August, 2022
 
Last edited:
federal-court-png.12082


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

MarkHannah and Asssailant are required to appear before the Federal Court in the case of Yeet_Boy v. Mark_Hannah and Asssailant [2022] FCR 65.

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.​
 
The court requests a public defender, given that 48 hours have elapsed. I will also find MarkHannah and Asssailant in contempt of court for failing to respond.
 
Your Honor, I am attempting to contact MarkHannah and Asssailant.

I request that the court give me 24 hours to contact them and get everything in order so that I can give a proper answer to this complaint.
 
The extension is granted, you have until 24 hours after this post to respond with an answer.
 
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

Yeet_Boy
Plaintiff

v.

Mark_Hannah
Asssailant
Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
1. The Defense does not dispute this fact.
2. The Defense does not dispute this fact.
3. The Defense disputes this fact.
4. The Defense does not dispute this fact.

II. DEFENCES
1. Asssailant did not agree to the contract in the third screenshot and thus cannot be held responsible for the terms of the contract.
2. The Plaintiff did not specify the design to be used to build the food court and there was no agreed-upon design within the contract. As such, the Defendants elected to design the food court with an open-air, apocalypse-style design. If Yeet_Boy wanted a different design, he had plenty of time to specify that within the contract he made.
3. MarkHannah and Asssailant did, in fact, finish the food court, as shown on the second screenshot, dated 8/21. There is no proof that Defendants did not finish the food court within the time frame specified within the contract.
4. Due to the food court's construction being completed, MarkHannah blocking Yeet_Boy after the completion of construction of the food court has no bearing on this case.

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 1st day of September, 2022.
 
The Plaintiff may now make their opening statement.
 
Your Honor, it’s been almost 2 days. Can we speed up this case and set a deadline for the Plaintiff to post an opening statement?
 
There is an automatic 48 hour deadline for all court communication. The deadline for the Plaintiff has expired, and the Defense may now present their opening statement.
 
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OPENING STATEMENT

Good evening, your Honor, opposing counsel.


The Plaintiff has alleged that the Defendants have violated the contract that they agreed to. This is simply untrue.

First off, Asssailant didn’t even agree to the contract that Yeet_Boy sent in the local chat. Only MarkHannah agreed to it. That means that only MarkHannah is liable to be sued for breach of contract and Asssailant shouldn’t even be named as a Defendant.

Secondly, MarkHannah and Asssailant did, in fact, finish the food court, contrary to what the Plaintiff alleged. The Plaintiff has furnished no proof as to whether or not it was done within the 2 week time frame and only produced an image that is a month after the signing of the contract. That is not proof that the food court was not completed within the 2 week time frame. There may be some interior designing to be done, but MarkHannah and Asssailant built an open air, apocalypse style food court. Did the Plaintiff lay out what design he wanted or how he wanted it built? No. That was never mentioned in the contract. If the Plaintiff is unhappy with the work that was done, that is not the fault of the Defendants, as they didn’t know which design to use or which design the Plaintiff wanted. There was no layout or blueprint given to the Defendants to let them know how the Plaintiff wanted the food court built.

Thirdly, MarkHannah did, in fact, block the Plaintiff on Discord, however that has no relevance in this case as MarkHannah blocked the Plaintiff after the work was complete.

Fourthly, it seems that opposing counsel is so convinced of the veracity of my statements in my answer to the complaint that they simply did not show up to court to dispute them. If opposing counsel fails to respond to the court again in a timely manner, a motion for summary judgement will be submitted.

DATED: This 4th day of September, 2022.
 
If either party would like to call witnesses, please present a list of names to call.
 
I have no witnesses to call.
 
Sorry your Honour, I have been very busy with assessments lately. I will attempt to respond as soon as possible. Thank you for your understanding.
 
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OPENING STATEMENT
Good evening, your Honour, counsellors,
Firstly, I would like to reject the defendants' counsellor's claims that only Mark_Hannah was subject to the contract. In exhibit 3 of the contract, we can observe both defendants being added to the plot as friends, indicating that both were contracted. The defendant (Asssailant) was seen in chat mentioning the opportunity.
A reasonable person could understand that both were being contracted to do complete the food court.

Secondly, I would like to reject the claim that the food court was completed by the two contractors. Contributing to my first point is the mention of the other contractor; we can clearly imply that this is Asssailant, no other friends were added to the plot at that time.
Regardless, the evidence attached shows that the requests for the themes of the restaurants in the food court were given to one of the contractors on the 10th of July: e.g Pizza, Chinese, etc, and these requirements are clearly not satisfied by the building that has been constructed.
4:

Image

5:
Image

There is further evidence to support this point from the government. Building inspectors have marked this place for eviction, showing that this building was not at an acceptable standard for presentation at government standards. A reasonable person could conclude this construction was not completed to an acceptable standard from this evidence.
6: Evidence of Eviction of property:
1662467757338.png

Therefore, a reasonable person could conclude that the project was not finished to an acceptable standard (by both the plaintiff's demands (specific themes), and the government's regulatory body on buildings and their quality).

As the building is not complete, we can also reject the defendants' counsellor's claim that the blocking of my client did not impact the completion of the construction.

Finally, I would like to apologize to the parties in this court for my lateness. I thank you all for your understanding.
Dated, this 6th day of September, 2022.
 
OBJECTION
BREACH OF PROCEDURE

Opposing counsel has already missed their time for submitting their opening statement by nearly 3 days. We’re already past opening statements.
 
I will be sustaining the objection, and the Plaintiff's opening statement is struck from the record. If the
Plaintiff wishes to call witnesses, this is your warning that you have just over 6 hours to do so before I make the summons.
 
Do I have permission to resubmit my response to the defendant's opening statement, your Honour?
 
Unless you have an objection to make, no. The time passed and we will move on to closing statements as neither party has witnesses to call.

The Plaintiff may now present their closing statements.
 
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CLOSING STATEMENT
Good evening, your Honour, counsellors,
I would like to reject the defendants' counsellor's claims that only Mark_Hannah was subject to the contract. In exhibit 3 of the contract, we can observe both defendants being added to the plot as friends, indicating that both were contracted. The defendant (Asssailant) was seen in chat mentioning the opportunity.
A reasonable person could understand that both were being contracted to do complete the food court.
Contributing to this point is the mention of the other contractor in Exhibit 4; we can clearly imply that this is Asssailant, no other friends were added to the plot at that time.

I would like to reject the claim that the food court was completed by the two contractors.
The evidence attached shows that the requests for the themes of the restaurants in the food court were given to one of the contractors on the 10th of July: e.g, a Chinese restaurant and these requirements are clearly not satisfied by the building that has been constructed, with the designs evidently not meeting any of the standards set by the plaintiff.
4:

Image


5:
Image


There is further evidence to support this point from the government. Building inspectors have marked this place for eviction, showing that this building was not at an acceptable standard for presentation at government standards. A reasonable person could conclude this construction was not completed to an acceptable standard from this evidence.
Our definition of completion is that the builder has completed the request for the themes of the restaurants, as well as the plot being at a standard at which Building Inspectors do not mark the plot for eviction, which the defendants have clearly not satisfied.
6: Evidence of property subject to eviction:
https://www.democracycraft.net/threads/c086-09sept22.14301/
1662467757338.png

Plots c086 and c087 are merged.
Therefore, a reasonable person could conclude that the project was not finished to an acceptable standard (by both the plaintiff's demands (specific themes), and the government's regulatory body (on buildings and their quality)).
As the building is not complete, we can also reject the defendants' counsellor's claim that the blocking of my client did not impact the completion of the construction.

Therefore, Defense 1 (that Asssailant is not a party to this lawsuit) have been dispelled, as a reasonable person could understand the relationship between Mark_Hannah and Asssailant were two contractors (added to the plot at the same time, referencing the contract as an opportunity)
Defense 2 (The Plaintiff did not specify the design to be used to build the food court) is incorrect due to Exhibit 4 and 5, showing that the contractor Mark_Hannah did agree to build with these specific themes in mind (pizza, Chinese, etc), on the contrary to the open-air apocalyptic style that the opposing counsel suggests was their design due to the (incorrectly) assumed lack of plaintiff input on their behalf.
Defense 3 (That the two contractors did in fact finish the food court) is incorrect due to the reasonable definition of completion that we have set, which is that the themes of the build are in fact met, as well as the government's eviction of the plot showing that the building was not completed to a high enough standard to merit business (Exhibit 6).
Defense 4 (That the defendant Mark_Hannah blocking the plaintiff did not sever meaningful communication due to the completion of the project) is voided by the project not being completed to reasonable standards, as I have highlighted previously.

We believe that the plaintiff is within their rights to seek compensation for the monetary loss they incurred, from an unfinished project, which, by both the plaintiff and the government's standards, is not complete.
We maintain that the plaintiff is entitled to $6500 ($3250 each) from the two defendants, and legal fees of $500 ($250 each).
Dated, this 7th day of September, 2022.
 
The Defense may now present their closing statements.
 
OBJECTION
IMPROPER EVIDENCE

It is improper procedure to submit evidence during a closing statement. There was no request of the court to allow new evidence, and no approval from the court to submit new evidence.
 
The objection is sustained, and all new evidence presented by the Plaintiff in their closing argument will not be considered by the court. With that said, the Defense may present their closing statement.
 
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CLOSING STATEMENT

Good evening, your Honor, opposing counsel.

I will quote and then rebut each of opposing counsel’s statements in their closing statement in a quote and response format.

Opposing counsel states:

“In exhibit 3 of the contract, we can observe both defendants being added to the plot as friends, indicating that both were contracted. The defendant (Asssailant) was seen in chat mentioning the opportunity.

A reasonable person could understand that both were being contracted to do complete the food court.”

As shown in Exhibit 3, both MarkHannah and Asssailant were added as friends to the plot before the contract was even proposed, let alone signed (by only MarkHannah). This means you cannot make the “reasonable understanding” that both were contracted. Both may have worked on the food court, however this does not mean that both were contracted to build the food court.

“I would like to reject the claim that the food court was completed by the two contractors.”

The open air, minimalist design, apocalypse style food court was completed. This was shown in Exhibit 2. It may need some interior decorating, however Yeet_Boy is fully within his rights to decorate the interior of the building the way he sees fit and the job that the contractors were hired to do has already been completed. You’re not going to build a whole sky scraper (open air, and apocalypse style) and then once the job is completed, sue the contractors for not decorating the interior. The construction was completed, and Yeet_Boy is free to make his interior design choices beyond that however he sees fit.

“Building inspectors have marked this place for eviction, showing that this building was not at an acceptable standard for presentation at government standards. A reasonable person could conclude this construction was not completed to an acceptable standard from this evidence.”

The contract between MarkHannah and Yeet_Boy did not specify that the building had to be approved by the government.

“Our definition of completion is that the builder has completed the request for the themes of the restaurants, as well as the plot being at a standard at which Building Inspectors do not mark the plot for eviction, which the defendants have clearly not satisfied.”

The definition of completion is that the builder has completed the building, which has been done.

“Therefore, a reasonable person could conclude that the project was not finished to an acceptable standard (by both the plaintiff's demands (specific themes), and the government's regulatory body (on buildings and their quality)).”

The building was completed and the contract was upheld to the letter of the law.

“As the building is not complete, we can also reject the defendants' counsellor's claim that the blocking of my client did not impact the completion of the construction.”

The building is complete, as has already been established.

“Therefore, Defense 1 (that Asssailant is not a party to this lawsuit) have been dispelled, as a reasonable person could understand the relationship between Mark_Hannah and Asssailant were two contractors (added to the plot at the same time, referencing the contract as an opportunity)”

Only MarkHannah agreed to the contract. Merely mentioning the opportunity does not constitute agreeing to a contract. Being added to a plot as a friend does not constitute agreeing to a contract. As stated before, the Defendants were added to the plot before the contract was sent, and before it was agreed to by MarkHannah.

“Defense 2 (The Plaintiff did not specify the design to be used to build the food court) is incorrect due to Exhibit 4 and 5, showing that the contractor Mark_Hannah did agree to build with these specific themes in mind (pizza, Chinese, etc), on the contrary to the open-air apocalyptic style that the opposing counsel suggests was their design due to the (incorrectly) assumed lack of plaintiff input on their behalf.”

The entire basis of this line of reasoning is founded on invalid evidence that has been found inadmissible and thus does not need a rebuttal.

“Defense 3 (That the two contractors did in fact finish the food court) is incorrect due to the reasonable definition of completion that we have set, which is that the themes of the build are in fact met, as well as the government's eviction of the plot showing that the building was not completed to a high enough standard to merit business (Exhibit 6).

Defense 4 (That the defendant Mark_Hannah blocking the plaintiff did not sever meaningful communication due to the completion of the project) is voided by the project not being completed to reasonable standards, as I have highlighted previously.”

The “reasonable definition” is not a definition that can be held up in court. Within the bounds of the contract between Yeet_Boy and MarkHannah, the building was completed.



Thus far I have not been able to contact my clients. As I still have pending friend requests to contact both of them, it puts me in the position of acting unilaterally on their behalf. Although my clients stand firmly behind the design choices that they made and the quality of their work, I believe my clients, out of the generousness of their hearts and their desire for customer satisfaction would request the court to rule in their favor, but with a few caveats. They have done nothing wrong and it is simply an aesthetic disagreement. As style is a matter of preference and not of law, the court should rule in their favor. However, my clients would also request the court to order the refund of the money paid for their service to the Plaintiff with the stipulations that:

1. The Plaintiff acknowledges and states for the record in this courtroom that my clients have not breached the contract and that Plaintiff states that it is the best open air, apocalypse style food court of all time however not the style they prefer;
2. Opposing counsel apologize to their client in this courtroom for not showing up to court;
3. For such conduct named in the point above, the Plaintiff not be awarded legal fees and the Plaintiff be relieved of the requirement to pay legal fees to their attorney.


If those stipulations are met, then the money can be reimbursed to the Plaintiff by order of the court to be spent on a food court in their preferred aesthetic style.

As integrity and reputation are clearly important to my clients, these statements made by the Plaintiff and his attorney would be the resolution they most desire, clearly, as creative inspiration, their reputation, and customer satisfaction is the bottom line of my clients and not financial gain.


DATED: This 7th day of September, 2022.
 
Thank you, the court is now in recess.
 

Verdict


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Yeet_Boy v. MarkHannah and Asssailant [2022] FCR 65

I. PLAINTIFF’S POSITION
1. The Plaintiff made a contract with the Defendants for the Defendants to build a food court on an empty plot.
2. The Defendants did not do so and severed communication between themselves and the Plaintiff
3. The Plaintiff paid $6500 for this service, which they are entitled to have returned

II. DEFENSE’S POSITION
1. There is no proof that both Defendants were part of the contract, and Asssailant never signed or agreed to the contract at all after it was proposed
2. The Plaintiff did not specify what kind of food court had to be built, and the Defendants did not violate this, by building an “open-air, apocalypse style” food court

III. COURT’S OPINION
1. It is essential to a contract that the terms be agreed upon by all parties. If any of the parties in the contract do not agree, the contract is not enforceable
2. The terms of the contract provided by Yeet_Boy clearly include both MarkHannah and Asssailant as parties
3. Asssailant did not sign the contract in any evidence presented by the Plaintiff. It is true that they expressed interest in the opportunity, but this cannot be construed as accepting a contract, especially given that the statement of interest was made before Asssailant could have possibly known what the terms of the contract were or agreed to them
4. MarkHannah was not acting as a legal representative of Asssailant at the time, and could not sign any contracts on Asssailant’s behalf
5. It has been argued that MarkHannah at least is liable for their part of the contract, however the contract specifically mentioned both MarkHannah and Asssailant working together, meaning that if MarkHannah were agreeing to the contract without Asssailant, it would essentially be making Asssailant liable for something they did not agree to
6. Given that the contract only has two clauses, one for payment and the other specifying instructions, the fact that all parties did not agree to the contract render it null and void
7. By this virtue, the contract is unenforceable, and does not bind any of the parties
8. Given that the Plaintiff has attempted to use this agreement as a binding contract in court, it must be considered in that capacity, and its terms enforced only as far as the contract itself may be enforced under law

IV. VERDICT
I hereby find in favor of the Defense.

The Court thanks both parties for their time. This case is now adjourned.

 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top