In The Distinguished Court of The Stratham Republic
CIVIL ACTION
Date: 10/09/2022
Reppal
(Solid Law Firm/Dartanman representing)
v.
ImYourPanPal
I. Description of Case
The Plaintiff brings forth the following causes of action and alleges the following against the Defendant:
The Defendant led the Plaintiff to believe that the Defendant would sell their house for 4,000 krunas, and asked for 2,000 krunas up front. The Plaintiff paid, and then the Defendant said, “no rule against scamming” and “thanks now I can pay my debt.”
II. Parties
1. Reppal
2. ImYourPanPal
III. Sequence of Events
1. ImYourPanPal told Reppal that he was “selling [the house] for 4k instead of 5k.”
2. Reppal responded to ImYourPanPal, “2k or I’m not doing it.”
3. ImYourPanPal responded, “fine, 2k upfront”
4. Feeling this was a reasonable deal, Reppal sent ImYourPanPal 2,000 krunas.
5. ImYourPanPal then said to Reppal:
“haha”
“no rule against scamming”
“thanks now I can pay my debt”
IV. Claims for Relief
1. The Defendant broke the terms of their contract.
V. Damages
1. 2,000 krunas to refund the money stolen in this scam.
2. 2,000 krunas for the Plaintiff to recuperate the lost sales because of the inability to buy a tractor.
3. 750 krunas in legal fees.
Evidence:
In advancing this form to the court, you acknowledge and concur with the rules of court which highlight the importance of honesty at all times. Moreover, you understand the punishments for breaking these rules and/or committing perjury and deception in the court.
CIVIL ACTION
Date: 10/09/2022
Reppal
(Solid Law Firm/Dartanman representing)
v.
ImYourPanPal
I. Description of Case
The Plaintiff brings forth the following causes of action and alleges the following against the Defendant:
The Defendant led the Plaintiff to believe that the Defendant would sell their house for 4,000 krunas, and asked for 2,000 krunas up front. The Plaintiff paid, and then the Defendant said, “no rule against scamming” and “thanks now I can pay my debt.”
II. Parties
1. Reppal
2. ImYourPanPal
III. Sequence of Events
1. ImYourPanPal told Reppal that he was “selling [the house] for 4k instead of 5k.”
2. Reppal responded to ImYourPanPal, “2k or I’m not doing it.”
3. ImYourPanPal responded, “fine, 2k upfront”
4. Feeling this was a reasonable deal, Reppal sent ImYourPanPal 2,000 krunas.
5. ImYourPanPal then said to Reppal:
“haha”
“no rule against scamming”
“thanks now I can pay my debt”
IV. Claims for Relief
1. The Defendant broke the terms of their contract.
- Although short, there was an offer (to sell the house), acceptance (buying the house), consideration (money and the house), capacity (both parties were able to fulfill their responsibilities), legality (nothing illegal was asked for in the contract), legal intent (clearly this occurred and, although it turned out to be a scam, it was intended as a legal contract), and this occurred in the correct order (Offer → Acceptance → Consideration, with clear capacity, legality, and legal intent).
V. Damages
1. 2,000 krunas to refund the money stolen in this scam.
2. 2,000 krunas for the Plaintiff to recuperate the lost sales because of the inability to buy a tractor.
3. 750 krunas in legal fees.
Evidence:
In advancing this form to the court, you acknowledge and concur with the rules of court which highlight the importance of honesty at all times. Moreover, you understand the punishments for breaking these rules and/or committing perjury and deception in the court.
