Original in-game verdict

Background 1. Revathi Pillai bought a washing machine from Willowdial Appliances. The shared invoice records payment in full and states that delivery and standard installation are included, while additional plumbing and materials may be charged. The dispute concerns a separate attendance fee associated with installation. Revathi asks for a refund of that fee, but says it was not paid. Willowdial has offered to arrange the included standard installation without an attendance fee. Revathi accepts that offer so long as she does not have to pay an attendance fee. 2. This judgment is based on the hearing record and the supplied rules. The parties’ submissions are accounts and arguments, not independent proof of every asserted fact. The invoice is a presented document held by both parties and is persuasive as to its written terms and the recorded washing-machine payment. It does not record an attendance-fee payment or describe what was said orally at purchase. Issues for determination 3. The issues are whether the attendance fee was disclosed before purchase; whether it was for chargeable extra work; and whether Revathi proved a payment that can be refunded. Under the supplied burden-of-proof rule, Revathi, as the party seeking relief, must support the facts needed for that relief. The supplied consumer rules require attention to promises and whether fees were disclosed before the customer committed. The remedy must also match the proven harm. Submissions of the parties 4. Revathi says installation was promised as free, the attendance fee was not explained before purchase, and the technician’s visit was made conditional on payment. She says she refused to pay and has had to do laundry by hand. She requests a refund, while acknowledging that no attendance fee was paid. She accepts Willowdial’s offer to arrange installation if no attendance fee is charged. 5. Willowdial says the invoice includes standard installation and permits charges for additional plumbing and materials, but does not expressly address attendance. It acknowledges that it has no separate written record of what was explained before purchase or what work required the fee. Willowdial does not seek to insist on an unexplained attendance charge. It offers to arrange standard installation without that fee, and says any non-standard plumbing or materials will be identified and agreed to beforehand. It cannot confirm an appointment date in this record. Evidence and findings 6. The invoice is strong evidence of the written purchase terms: standard installation was included, and additional plumbing and materials could be charged. Its wording does not define standard installation and does not expressly say whether attendance is included or excluded. The invoice therefore supports Revathi’s position that the written terms do not disclose an attendance fee, but cannot establish what was said orally before purchase. Willowdial’s acknowledgment that it has no separate record leaves that question unresolved by documentary evidence. 7. Revathi’s account that the fee was not disclosed is relevant, but the record supplies no further direct evidence of the purchase conversation. Willowdial’s position that it will not insist on the unexplained fee is a practical concession, not proof that the fee was or was not disclosed. Applying the burden-of-proof rule, the court finds that Revathi has not established non-disclosure on this record. This finding does not establish that disclosure occurred; it means the evidence does not resolve the question in Revathi’s favor. 8. The record likewise does not identify work performed in exchange for the attendance fee. The invoice permits charges for additional plumbing and materials, but does not show that either was needed or performed. Willowdial’s offer to charge only for identified extra work agreed to beforehand is consistent with the invoice’s express terms. Neither party has proved that the disputed attendance fee was a charge for such extra work. The court therefore finds that the plaintiff has not established a basis for a separate charge, while also not finding that any extra work occurred. 9. On refund, the evidence is decisive. Revathi says the attendance fee was not paid. The invoice records payment in full for the washing machine but no attendance-fee payment, and no other record establishes payment or an amount. There is consequently no proven attendance payment to return. The purchase price is not a monetary recovery claim and is not a basis for an award here. Reasons 10. The supplied consumer-promises rule supports enforcing the specific promise shown in the invoice: standard installation was included. The fee-disclosure rule makes disclosure important, but the record does not establish what was said before purchase. The invoice’s silence about attendance is relevant, yet it cannot alone prove that no oral disclosure occurred. Because Revathi bears the burden of supporting her requested relief, the uncertainty on disclosure does not establish her claim. 11. The same evidentiary limits apply to the fee’s basis. Willowdial has no work record, and the invoice does not define the boundary between standard installation and extra work. The court will not assume that extra work occurred or that an attendance fee was justified. The practical resolution is to enforce the included installation and the parties’ accepted condition: no attendance fee, and no charge for extra plumbing or materials unless the work is identified and Revathi agrees beforehand. This gives effect to the written promise and Willowdial’s offer without deciding unsupported facts about the technician’s work. 12. The refund request fails independently because Revathi says she did not pay the fee. Under the burden-of-proof and proportional-remedy rules, a refund cannot exceed a proven payment or loss. No amount is established. The court does not award compensation for the reported inconvenience because the record contains no amount or other basis for calculating such relief, and the requested monetary remedy was a refund of the attendance fee. 13. Willowdial has not provided a date for installation. That omission does not change the proven invoice term or the accepted offer, and the record does not supply a basis for setting a particular appointment date. The order will require Willowdial to arrange the included standard installation without an attendance fee. It will not require Revathi to accept or pay for extra work; any such work must first be identified and agreed to, consistent with Willowdial’s stated offer. Final order 14. The plaintiff’s request for a refund is denied because no attendance-fee payment or amount was proved. The plaintiff has not established that the fee was undisclosed or that it was for chargeable extra work. These findings do not establish that an attendance fee was properly disclosed or earned; they reflect the limits of the evidence and the plaintiff’s burden on the requested relief. 15. Willowdial shall arrange the included standard installation without charging an attendance fee. Revathi need not accept or pay for extra work as a condition of receiving that included installation. Any non-standard plumbing or materials must be identified and agreed to by Revathi before the work is done or charged. No monetary award is made. The defendant prevails on the refund claim, subject to the installation obligation stated in this order.