S vs G: Answer and Counterclaim from RDA

From HypertWiki
Revision as of 02:01, 7 May 2005 by Woozle (talk | contribs)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Staddon vs. Griever: Answer and Counterclaim (from RDA)

In the State Court of Athens-Clarke County, State of Georgia
Civil Action #ST-05-CV-0049

Editor's Note

No Sixth Defense was listed.

Main Text

COME NOW Defendants and respond to Plaintiffs' Complaint as follows:

First Defense

Plaintiffs' Complaint fails to state a claim against Defendants upon which relief can be granted.

Second Defense

Plaintiffs' Complaint should be dismissed on the grounds that this court lacks jurisdiction over Defendants.

Third Defense

Plaintiffs' Complaint should be dismissed based on the statute of limitations.

Fourth Defense

Defendants raise the defense of lack of mutuality of contract, release, statute of frauds, estoppel, waiver, and failure of consideration.

Fifth Defense

Defendants will raise all defenses under §O.C.G.A. 9-11-8(c) to the extent the same may apply.

Seventh Defense

Count One

1. Defendants admit the allegations contained in Paragraph 1.
2. Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 2.
3. Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 3.
4. Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 4.
5. Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 5.

Count Two

6. Defendants reallege and incorporate their responses to Paragraphs 1 through 5 as if fully set forth herein.
7. Defendants admit the allegations contained in Paragraph 7.
8. Defendants deny as stated the allegations contained in Paragraph 8.
9. Defendants deny as stated the allegations contained in Paragraph 9.
10. Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 10.
11. Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 11.
12. Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 12.

Count Three

13. Defendants reallege and incorporate their responses to Paragraphs 1 through 12 as if fully set forth herein.
14. Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 14.
15. Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 15.
16. Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 16.
17. Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 17.
18. Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 18.
19. Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 19.

Count Four

20. Defendants reallege and incorporate their responses to Paragraphs 1 through 19 as if fully set forth herein.
21. Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 21.
22. Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 22.

Count Five

23. Defendants reallege and incorporate their responses to Paragraphs 1 through 23 as if fully set forth herein.
24. Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 24.
25. Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 25.
26. Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 26.

Count Six

27. Defendants reallege and incorporate their responses to Paragraphs 1 through 26 as if fully set forth herein.
28. Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 26.

Any and all allegations contained in Plaintiffs' Complaint which have not been specifically responded to herein are expressly denied.

WHEREFORE, Defendants pray they be discharged with all costs cast against the Plaintiffs, and for such other and further relief as the Court may deem just.

Counterclaim

NOW COMES Defendants and files this their Counterclaim against Plaintiffs as follows:

1. Plaintiffs are subject to the Jurisdiction and venue of this Court by virtue of Plaintiffs' action against Defendants.
2. Defendants aver that Plaintiffs have been unjustly enriched, jointly and severally, as a result of laborm abd delivery of materials, goods, software, intellectual property, and sources supplied to Plaintiffs by Defendants in the sum of not less than $50,000.
3. Defendants aver that the parties orally agreed to various obligations or contracts which may or may not be enforceable for lack of a meeting of the minds, ambiguity, or violation of the statute of frauds. However, if said contracts are enforceable, then Plaintiffs owe Defendants not less than $50,000.
4. Defendants aver that vbz.net was an internet store owned by Defendant Willard Dale Griever and Plaintiffs should be enjoined from use of vbz.net.

WHEREFORE, Defendants pray:

(a) That [they] be discharged as to Plaintiffs' action agains them with all costs cast against Plaintiffs;
(b) That they be awarded judgment against Plaintiffs as to Defendants' claim for property damage; and

(Transcription of this document is still in progress.)

wiki file: https://hypertwins.org/mw/index.php?title=S_vs_G:_Answer_and_Counterclaim_from_RDA&oldid=220