Answer to Counterclaim (Nevada)

Frontmatter


kind: pleading
title: Answer to Counterclaim (Nevada)
jurisdiction: NV
respondent_type: person
code: answer_to_counterclaim__nevada
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: {}

Body

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

ANSWER TO COUNTERCLAIM

FIXTURE DOCUMENT. This is a sample rendered from a notation template in the Navigator sample project. Cruller v. Prine is a simulated matter, this answer is filed on behalf of no one, and nothing in it is legal advice or a genuine court filing.

Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County, Nevada

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

{{person__client}}, an individual, Counter-defendant, vs. Wendell Prine, an individual, Counterclaimant.

Date filed: {{custom_datetime__answer_date}}

ANSWER TO COUNTERCLAIM FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT

Counter-defendant {{person__client}} answers the Counterclaim for Breach of Contract filed by Counterclaimant Wendell Prine on 10 August 2026 as follows.

General denial

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

Specific admissions

Counter-defendant admits that on 1 April 2025 Counterclaimant offered Counter-defendant a doughnut over the hedge dividing the parties' properties, describing it only as "neat"; that Counter-defendant took a partial bite on that date and set the remainder aside; and that the remainder was consumed on 14 April 2026. Counter-defendant denies that those acts formed a contract of any kind, denies that any consideration passed beyond the doughnut itself, and denies each remaining allegation of the Counterclaim.

Affirmative defenses

First Affirmative Defense — failure to state a claim. The Counterclaim fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. A human soul is not property capable of legal conveyance, and a purported bargain for one states no claim a court can enforce, whatever the parties are alleged to have intended by it.

Second Affirmative Defense — no meeting of the minds. Counter-defendant never assented to the conveyance of anything beyond a doughnut, having never been told that a further exchange was proposed. A term neither disclosed nor discoverable before performance cannot be the term of an agreement.

Third Affirmative Defense — fraudulent concealment. Describing the instrument as merely "neat," while omitting the term Counterclaimant now says it carried, converted silence about a material term into an affirmative misrepresentation. A contract induced that way is voidable at Counter-defendant's election, and it has been rescinded.

Fourth Affirmative Defense — unconscionability. The alleged term is both procedurally and substantively unconscionable under Nevada law. The Nevada Supreme Court has held that 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," and that substantive unconscionability turns on the one-sidedness of the term itself. D.R. Horton, Inc. v. Green, 120 Nev. 549, 96 P.3d 1159 (2004). A term placed where it cannot be read before the instrument is consumed is not ascertainable on any review, and a soul traded for one doughnut is one-sided on its face.

Fifth Affirmative Defense — no consideration flowed to Counter-defendant. Counter-defendant received nothing beyond the doughnut already accounted for in paragraph 2. A promise unsupported by consideration running the other way binds no one.

Prayer for relief

Counter-defendant prays 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.

{{person__client}}, by and through counsel

Neon Law, 2400 Confection Way, Suite 400, Las Vegas, Nevada 89101, Attorneys for Counter-defendant {{person__client}}.

Questionnaire

Try answering this

Sample matter: Acme LLC — nothing you type below is saved anywhere.

This step records the client.
On what date is this answer to the counterclaim filed?

Step 1 of 2

This step records the client.

Workflow

Sample runs — illustrative only. This notation's real activity is never shown on a public page.

Sample run 1Completed

lawyer_review

Received event `_` from `BEGIN`.

Event `_` — transitioned to `END`.

Sample run 3In progress

lawyer_review

Received event `_` from `BEGIN`.

Awaiting its next event.