Original in-game verdict

Background 1. This matter concerns a dispute over a 1,200 PLN advance payment made by Anna Krawczyk to Marek Nowak in connection with custom kitchen shelves. The visible record shows a bank transfer confirmation for 1,200 PLN with the note “kitchen shelves deposit.” The record also contains messages referring to final dimensions, and the defendant’s account that the work paused while those dimensions were being confirmed. 2. The defendant’s position is that the deposit was reserved for materials and design time, that the plaintiff changed the plan, and that work stopped pending confirmation. The plaintiff’s position is that she paid for a job that was not delivered and that the money should be returned. Issues for determination 3. The first issue is whether the plaintiff proved that the deposit was withheld and that the withholding is challenged on a proper evidentiary basis. The second issue is whether the defendant justified retaining the full 1,200 PLN under the applicable burden and record requirements. 4. Because this is a deposit dispute, the Court must apply the general proof rules together with the category-specific deposit rule. Rule 1 requires the party asking for relief to point to specific facts, records, or testimony. Rule 2 gives greater weight to written records than to vague recollections. Rule 11 requires deposit deductions to be itemized, timely, and tied to actual costs, while Rule 9 warns that ordinary wear or vague minor repair-type assertions do not justify chargeable deductions without specific support. Submissions of the parties 5. The plaintiff submitted that she paid 1,200 PLN in advance, the shelves were not delivered, and the defendant did not provide a proper accounting to justify keeping the money. She relied on the payment record and messages showing that she was asking about the shelves. 6. The defendant submitted that the plaintiff changed the plan, went quiet for days, and delayed the work by failing to confirm final dimensions. The defendant also relied on the message screenshot referring to final dimensions and argued that the deposit was for reserving materials and design time. Evidence and findings 7. The Court accepts as established that Anna Krawczyk transferred 1,200 PLN to Marek Nowak in advance. That fact is directly supported by the payment record described in the plaintiff’s prepared file. 8. The Court also accepts that there is a text message screenshot showing Anna asking about the shelves and a reply that the work was waiting for final dimensions. That record supports the defendant’s explanation that the project was paused during further confirmation. 9. The Court does not find on this record that the defendant proved a full entitlement to keep the entire deposit. The visible record does not contain receipts, invoices, an itemized statement, or photos of completed or partial work. It also does not contain a condition-specific accounting showing what part of the 1,200 PLN was actually spent, what part corresponded to completed work, or what part was retained for a contractually justified reason. 10. The witness Witness 1’s testimony is limited. He stated that he did not hear the full agreement, did not handle the money, and saw only that the work paused while final dimensions were still being confirmed. That testimony assists the defendant only to the extent of confirming a pause in the project; it does not establish the amount, if any, that could properly be retained. Reasons 11. The Court starts from the burden. The plaintiff had to show payment and challenge the withholding; the defendant then had to justify the retention of the deposit with a sufficient record. On the visible materials, the plaintiff met the first part of that burden by proving the advance payment and identifying the money as a deposit for the shelves. 12. The defendant’s position is not rejected in full. The message record and the witness testimony make it plausible that the project was delayed during a confirmation process and that the defendant did not simply disappear. However, plausibility is not the same as proof of a right to keep the full sum. 13. Rule 11 is decisive on the remedy. A deposit deduction or retention is stronger when it is itemized, timely, and tied to actual costs. The defendant’s file does not supply that detail. There is no itemization, no receipts, no documented cost breakdown, and no specific condition evidence showing that 1,200 PLN was earned or consumed in full. 14. Rule 2 also matters. The written message about final dimensions supports the existence of a scheduling or confirmation issue, but it does not itself prove the amount that could be withheld. The Court cannot convert a communication about waiting for dimensions into a complete accounting for the retained money. 15. Rule 9 does not assist the defendant on the present record. Even if the project involved ordinary back-and-forth over measurements, that kind of routine service difficulty does not by itself justify keeping the entire deposit. The Court needs a documented basis for the amount retained, not just a general narrative of delay. 16. Rule 1 and Rule 6 together require a remedy matched to the proven harm. The plaintiff proved payment and an unjustified failure to account for the retention, but did not prove a larger damages theory beyond the return of the deposit itself. Accordingly, full repayment of the deposit is the proper and proportionate remedy on this record. 17. The Court therefore finds for the plaintiff on liability for return of the 1,200 PLN deposit. Basic costs are also granted to the extent they are part of the requested relief and supported by the record. No broader award is justified on the present evidence. Final order 18. The prevailing side is plaintiff. The represented side is defendant, so the winner is opponent. 19. Marek Nowak shall pay Anna Krawczyk 1,200 PLN. 20. Basic costs are awarded to Anna Krawczyk to the extent supported by the record; no additional damages are awarded. 21. Any request by Marek Nowak to retain the full deposit is denied.