Original in-game verdict

Background 1. Aino Lehtonen asks for €600 from Oskari Lehtonen for a sofa and table that Oskari kept. The dispute is about whether Oskari promised to pay that amount and whether payment depended on the sale of a spare desk. 2. The parties have each had an opportunity to explain their positions and identify further records. Oskari says he has no additional record. The hearing is ready for decision on the available material. Issues for determination 3. The central issue is whether Aino has shown that Oskari owed €600 for the sofa and table, and whether the record establishes that payment was conditional on the spare desk selling. Under Rule 1: The Claim Needs Proof, Aino, as the party seeking payment, must point to facts or records supporting the claim. Rule 2 gives greater weight to reliable written records than to unsupported recollections. Rule 14 confirms that relationship conflict does not erase shared financial responsibilities. Submissions of the parties 4. Aino says the parties agreed on €600 for the sofa and table, Oskari kept them, and he did not pay. She relies principally on the Friday message and her account of the agreement. She argues that the earlier exchange does not show that she accepted the desk’s sale as a firm condition. 5. Oskari says he earlier asked whether he could pay once the spare desk sold, and Aino replied that this could work and that they should sort out timing. He argues that the Friday message may have reflected the expected timing within that arrangement rather than removing the condition. He acknowledges that the Friday message supports a payment commitment and that the earlier exchange does not prove Aino accepted a firm condition. He has no further record to offer. Evidence and findings 6. Exhibit 1, repeated in exhibits 3 and 6, is a readable saved WhatsApp excerpt acknowledged by both spouses. It records Oskari saying, “I’ll keep the sofa and table. I’ll send you the €600 on Friday,” followed by Aino’s “All right.” The excerpt is incomplete because it does not show the earlier discussion. Its wording nevertheless directly supports a promise to pay €600 for the items Oskari says he will keep. 7. Exhibit 2, repeated in exhibits 4 and 6, records Oskari asking, “Could I pay the €600 once the spare desk sells?” Aino replies, “That could work. Let’s sort out the timing.” This supports Oskari’s account that payment after the desk’s sale was discussed. It does not say that Aino finally agreed payment would be due only if or when the desk sold. The reply is tentative and expressly leaves timing to be sorted out. 8. Aino’s saved client statement says that the parties agreed on €600 for the sofa and dining table and that Oskari agreed to pay. This is an account relayed by counsel, not an independently verified document or admitted witness testimony. I give it some supporting weight, but do not treat it as conclusive. The parties’ submissions are arguments and are not, by themselves, proof. Oskari’s acknowledgment of the Friday message and his account of the earlier exchange are consistent with the messages’ wording. Reasons 9. Aino has met her burden to establish a €600 payment commitment. The strongest evidence is the acknowledged Friday message. It links the amount to Oskari keeping the sofa and table and states a specific payment day. Aino’s attributed account supports that reading, although its weight is limited by its source. 10. The earlier exchange creates a genuine question about whether the parties had discussed payment after the desk sold. I have considered it together with the Friday message, rather than treating the Friday excerpt as complete. The earlier exchange proves that Oskari proposed a sale-linked timing and that Aino responded that it could work. It does not prove that the proposal became a firm condition. In particular, Aino’s reply also says they should sort out timing, and the later message states a definite Friday payment without mentioning the desk sale. 11. Oskari’s interpretation is possible, but the record does not establish that the condition remained part of the final arrangement. The burden is Aino’s to prove the payment claim, not Oskari’s to disprove it. Aino has met that burden through the direct written promise and the surrounding evidence. The uncertainty in the earlier exchange does not outweigh the later, specific commitment. The record also supports that Oskari kept the sofa and table; no evidence establishes a different value or a basis to reduce the agreed €600 amount. 12. No separate claim for interest, costs, or other relief is supported by the supplied record or rules. The order is therefore limited to the proven €600 payment. Final order 13. Judgment is entered for plaintiff Aino Lehtonen and against defendant Oskari Lehtonen. Oskari must pay Aino €600 for the sofa and table. 14. Aino’s claim for €600 is granted in full. No additional relief is awarded. This judgment decides only the payment dispute established by the hearing record.