Answer to Counterclaim (Nevada)

This is a synthetic preview; nothing you type below is saved.

Questionnaire

Try answering this

Sample matter: Acme LLC — preview only. Answers remain available on this page; browser storage is unavailable.

Question 1 of 2

Client

All questions
  1. Who is Client?
  2. On what date is this answer to the counterclaim filed?

Body

Answer to Counterclaim (Nevada)

Arrow keys or Space step through the document. Click a paragraph to highlight it.

Cover sheet

Sample from a notation template. The matter is simulated. This answer is filed for no one. It is not legal advice and it is not a filing.

Caption

Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County, Nevada

Cruller v. Prine

Case No. A-26-874219-C. Dept. No. XVII.

Who is Client?, an individual, Counter-defendant, v. Wendell Prine, an individual, Counterclaimant.

Date filed: On what date is this answer to the counterclaim filed?

ANSWER TO COUNTERCLAIM

ANSWER TO COUNTERCLAIM FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT

Counter-defendant Who is Client? answers the Counterclaim for Breach of Contract that Wendell Prine filed on 10 August 2026.

General denial

Except as admitted below, Counter-defendant denies each allegation of the Counterclaim.

Specific admissions

Counter-defendant admits that on 1 April 2025 Counterclaimant offered a doughnut over the hedge, described only as "neat"; that Counter-defendant took a partial bite that day and set the remainder aside; and that the remainder was eaten on 14 April 2026. Those acts formed no contract. No consideration passed beyond the doughnut. Every other allegation is denied.

Affirmative defenses

  • First affirmative defense: failure to state a claim. A human soul is not property a court can convey. A bargain for one states no enforceable claim.
  • Second affirmative defense: no meeting of the minds. Counter-defendant never agreed to convey anything beyond a doughnut, and was never told that a further exchange was proposed. A term neither disclosed nor discoverable before performance is not a term of the agreement.
  • Third affirmative defense: fraudulent concealment. Calling the instrument "neat," and omitting the term Counterclaimant now asserts, turned silence into a misrepresentation. The contract is voidable, and it has been rescinded.
  • Fourth affirmative defense: unconscionability. The term is procedurally and substantively unconscionable. A term is procedurally unconscionable where "a party lacks a meaningful opportunity to agree to the clause terms . . . because the clause and its effects are not readily ascertainable upon a review of the contract." Substantive unconscionability turns on one-sidedness. D.R. Horton, Inc. v. Green, 120 Nev. 549, 96 P.3d 1159 (2004). A term that cannot be read before the instrument is eaten is not ascertainable. A soul for one doughnut is one-sided.
  • Fifth affirmative defense: no consideration. Counter-defendant received nothing beyond the doughnut in paragraph 2. A promise without consideration the other way binds no one.

Prayer for relief

Counter-defendant asks that the Counterclaim be dismissed with prejudice, that judgment be entered for Counter-defendant, and for costs and such other relief as the Court deems just.

Who is Client?, by counsel

Neon Law, 2400 Confection Way, Suite 400, Las Vegas, Nevada 89101, Attorneys for Counter-defendant Who is Client?.

Frontmatter

kind: pleading
title: Answer to Counterclaim (Nevada)
caption_title: ANSWER TO COUNTERCLAIM
footer_title: ANSWER TO COUNTERCLAIM
jurisdiction: NV
respondent_type: person
confidential: false
questionnaire:
  BEGIN:
    _: person__client
  person__client:
    _: custom_datetime__answer_date
  custom_datetime__answer_date:
    _: END
  END: {}
prompts:
  answer_date: On what date is this answer to the counterclaim filed?
workflow:
  BEGIN:
    _: lawyer_review
  lawyer_review:
    _: END
  END: {}
Workflow

Definition graph — generated directly from this notation's workflow.

__BEGINStartlawyer_reviewENDEnd