Original in-game verdict

Background 1. Oksana Hreben asks for the return of a cordless drill, battery, and charger held by Danylo Savchuk. The dispute is whether Oksana lent the drill to Danylo and later allowed him more time to use it, or gave it to him as a gift. The record contains a purchase receipt, a cropped message screenshot, the surrounding Viber exchange, and statements from both sides. No monetary damages are claimed or proved in the supplied record. Issues for determination 2. The sole material issue is whether Oksana has shown a better right to possess the drill kit than Danylo. Under Rule 1, the side asking for relief must support the request with facts, records, or testimony. Under Rule 29, the court considers which side has the stronger right to possess or control the property. Rule 2 directs the court to give reliable records weight while distinguishing what they establish from what they do not. Submissions of the parties 3. Oksana says she bought the drill and lent it to Danylo for work on shelves in his apartment. She says that when Danylo asked to keep it for another two weeks, her reply, “Keep it, no hurry,” meant that she was extending the loan, not giving away ownership. She asks for the drill, battery, and charger back. Her final submission adds no new evidence and does not identify a different remedy. 4. Danylo says he understood the same words as permission to keep the drill as a gift. He accepts that the words do not expressly transfer ownership and that the full exchange makes his interpretation harder to support. He has no separate evidence of a gift beyond the messages. He asks that Oksana’s request be denied or reduced, but does not identify a specific alternative remedy or evidence supporting one. Evidence and findings 5. Exhibit 3-E1 is a legible purchase receipt for a cordless drill kit costing UAH 3,200. It supports Oksana’s account that she acquired the drill. It does not, by itself, establish the terms on which she later handed it to Danylo, nor does the record establish that the receipt price is the present value of the kit. 6. Exhibit 2-E2 is Danylo’s cropped screenshot of Oksana’s words, “Keep it, no hurry.” The screenshot is relevant, but it omits the preceding message and is ambiguous when viewed alone. It could be read as a gift or as permission to continue using a borrowed item. It is not conclusive proof of either interpretation. 7. The surrounding exchange, shown in Exhibits 3-E3 and 4-E3, supplies the omitted context: Danylo asked, “Can I keep the drill another two weeks? I still have the hallway shelves,” and Oksana replied, “Keep it, no hurry.” The exchange is direct conversational context and is consistent across the record. Neither message expressly addresses ownership. The context nevertheless makes a temporary extension of use more likely than a gift: Danylo asked for two more weeks to finish a particular task, rather than asking to receive the drill permanently. 8. Oksana’s saved client accounts (Exhibit 3-client-statement:9 and Exhibit 3-client-statement:11) say she intended a loan extension. These are accounts relayed through the record, not independently verified documents or admitted witness testimony. They therefore have limits, but they are consistent with the receipt and the surrounding exchange. Danylo’s statements (including Statements 4, 6, and 8) candidly acknowledge the full context and the absence of separate gift evidence. His stated understanding is considered, but it does not outweigh the contextual evidence. Reasons 9. Oksana bears the burden of showing a better right to possession. The court does not treat her purchase receipt as proof of every later arrangement, and it does not treat Danylo’s possession as proof that ownership changed. The question is what the available evidence, considered together, supports. 10. The receipt establishes that Oksana bought a drill kit matching the item she says Danylo holds. The full exchange then shows Danylo asking to keep it for two more weeks while completing shelves, followed by Oksana’s permissive reply. That sequence fits Oksana’s account of a loan being extended. It does not fit a gift as naturally, because the request is framed as temporary and tied to unfinished work. The absence of an express ownership statement leaves some uncertainty, but the burden is not defeated merely because the parties did not use formal words. 11. Danylo’s interpretation is possible, and the court has considered it fairly. The cropped screenshot alone could support his understanding. But the full exchange is more informative than the crop, and Danylo himself accepts that it makes his reading harder to support. He offers no separate evidence that Oksana intended to give up ownership. On this record, Oksana has shown the stronger right to possess the drill kit. The claim for return is established under Rules 1, 2, and 29. 12. The record supports an order for return of the drill, battery, and charger as the requested property. It does not support a money award: the receipt records a purchase price, not a proven present loss or a basis for awarding that amount instead of return. No other monetary remedy is granted. Final order 13. Judgment is entered for the plaintiff, Oksana Hreben, on the claim for possession. The defendant, Danylo Savchuk, must return to Oksana the cordless drill, battery, and charger described in the record. No monetary award is made. The defendant’s request to deny or reduce the return claim is denied. No costs, interest, or deadline are ordered because the supplied record and rules do not provide a basis for them.