Lucas v Iaccp Bank & Trust 2025 Civ 37
Lucas v Iaccp Bank & Trust 2025 Civ 37
| Date of judgment | 6th January 2026 |
| Judge | Judge Thyme |
| Grounds |
|
| Verdict | Defendant found liable for Breach of Contract. |
| Remedy |
|
| Applicable persuasive precedent |
|
SUMMARY JUDGMENT by Judge Thyme
Summary of Facts
[1] The plaintiff alleges one count of Breach of Contract (Article 24 of the Civil Code 2025) against the defendant for not paying out the principal and interest amounts to the plaintiff from the plaintiff’s bank account with the defendant. The original remedy requested by the plaintiff was a total of 2,616 tau, including 500 tau in attorney’s fees.
[2] The plaintiff opened a bank account with the defendant on January 19th, 2025, an account which was contractually obligated to gain 2% in interest, compounded weekly, depositing 900 tau over a series of confirmed transactions. The contract agreed to is as follows:
“Congratulations! Your personal account has been approved! The minimum deposit is 50t. To deposit funds, make a transfer to “IACCP Bank and Trust”. Interest accrued will be deposited in your bank account weekly, and you will be notified accordingly. You may be asked to provide the PIN you created when making a withdrawal.”
[3] After an additional series of transactions, the plaintiff’s account balance sat at 533 tau on March 13th.
[4] On June 17th, the defendant left SimDemocracy without remitting the Plaintiff’s remaining balance or accrued interest, and subsequently failed to respond to repeated attempts at contact. At no point did the defendant dispute the existence of the account, the promised interest rate, or the confirmed balance.
[5] During pre-trial, the defendant refused to participate in court proceedings, so the pre-trial was called in absentia and a public defender was appointed. The plaintiff made a motion for a summary judgment and satisfied all three components of Article 18 §1 of the CPA. The defense did not object.
Jurisdiction
[6] This Court has personal jurisdiction over the defendant as a legal entity operating within SimDemocracy, and venue is proper under Article 16 §1 of the Civil Code 2025, as the conduct occurred on SimDemocracy.
Considerations
[7] A valid contract existed between the parties: offer (banking services with stated interest), acceptance (account creation), and consideration (deposit of tau). The defendant’s failure to repay the principal and promised interest constitutes a clear breach.
[8] The plaintiff argues that, under common law principles governing banker–customer relationships (Foley v. Hill (1848) 2 HLC 28 and Sempra Metals Limited (formerly Metallgesellschaft Limited) (Respondents) v. Her Majesty's Commissioners of Inland Revenue and another (Appellants)), funds deposited with a bank create a debtor–creditor relationship obligating repayment upon demand. The defense, during argumentation on mitigation, argued that since the defendant’s owner had left the server, the defendant stopped operating and interest should no longer have accrued from that point forward. Considering the plaintiff’s funds remained in the custody of the defendant during this time, it was still bound by the contract which proclaimed a 2% interest compounded weekly. The defendant’s abandonment does not extinguish this obligation and this Court sides with the plaintiff entirely.
[9] This Court accepts the plaintiff’s calculation of accrued interest. Applying 2% weekly compound interest over 39 weeks, the balance owed totals 1,058 tau.
[10] Article 24 of the Civil Code permits damages up to double the demonstrable value of the contract in cases of breach. However, the Court declines to impose the maximum penalty and instead awards actual damages plus statutory enhancement proportional to the defendant’s conduct.
[11] The plaintiff also requested attorney’s fees. While the plaintiff represented himself, this Court finds a partial award reasonable due to procedural burdens imposed by the defendant’s absence and subsequent delays.
Verdict
[12] The defendant is liable for Breach of Contract.
Remedy
[13] This Court orders the defendant to pay the plaintiff a total of 2,000 tau, calculated as follows:
- 1,058 tau as equal to the principal plus interest accrued
- 942 tau as enhanced damages and costs
[14] The Department of Treasury is authorized to execute this judgment against any accounts or assets held in the name of Iaccp Bank and Trust. Should such assets prove insufficient, further enforcement proceedings may be sought consistent with the Civil Code.
Citations
- https://www.uniset.ca/other/css/9ER1002.html
- https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200607/ldjudgmt/jd070718/sempra-1.htm
<references />