Original in-game verdict

Background 1. Elena Brooks seeks $180 from Curtis Nolan for a redesign to a banner. The parties agree that Curtis accepted a quote for $420 covering a banner layout, a print-ready file, and one revision, and that the original $420 was paid. Elena asks only for the additional $180 invoice. Curtis asks that the claim be denied, or reduced if the court finds that some additional payment was agreed. 2. The court decides the claim on the shared hearing record. The parties' submissions are arguments and accounts, not themselves proof of every asserted fact. The accepted quote is a presented exhibit and is relevant evidence of the agreed package. The record does not include the messages that Elena says support the additional charge. Issues for determination 3. The first issue is whether Curtis agreed to pay an additional $180. Elena bears the burden of supporting her request with specific facts, records, or testimony, under Rule 1: The Claim Needs Proof. Rule 2: Reliable Records Beat Vague Stories also directs the court to give greater weight to reliable records than to broad or unsupported descriptions. 4. The second issue is whether the redesign exceeded the one revision included in the quote. The quote's terms are central under Rule 18: Business Records Define the Deal. The scope of the included revision matters to Elena's claim, but proof that work may have gone beyond the package would not, by itself, establish that Curtis agreed to pay this particular additional price. Submissions of the parties 5. Elena argues that Curtis knew the redesign was being treated as an additional service and instructed her to proceed after the charge had been associated with the work. She says he had an opportunity to object and should not be able to separate his approval of the work from the price. Her earlier submissions likewise assert that messages support the charge, but do not quote or produce them. 6. Curtis says “go ahead” meant permission to proceed, not acceptance of an extra $180. He understood the layout change as the one revision included in the $420 quote. He emphasizes that the quote does not say when a revision is used up and does not state an additional price. He asks the court to deny the invoice, or reduce the award if some additional payment is found to have been agreed. Evidence and findings 7. The accepted quote, presented as exhibits 2-e1, 4-e1, and 6-e1, states “$420: banner layout, print-ready file, and one revision.” It does not define the scope of a revision or state an extra charge. The parties acknowledge that the $420 was paid. The repeated presentations are the same quote, not separate corroborating documents. 8. Curtis's account that the redesign changed the banner layout and that he understood it as the included revision appears in his submissions. His account is consistent with the quote's express inclusion of one revision, although the quote does not conclusively establish that this particular redesign fell within it. The record does not describe an earlier revision or provide enough detail to compare the work and determine whether the allowance had already been used. 9. Elena's final statement asserts that communications associated the $180 charge with the requested revision and that Curtis then instructed her to proceed. That assertion identifies the central point in dispute, but the communications themselves are not in the record. The court therefore cannot determine their exact wording, timing, or context. Nor does the record include an invoice or other specific document showing that Curtis accepted the $180 price. The court does not treat the asserted messages as though they had been presented. Reasons 10. Elena's argument that a customer may accept a price by authorizing work after the price is communicated is understandable. The court does not require that an agreement repeat the amount in any particular form. But the record must still support the conclusion that the price was communicated and accepted. Here, the only written agreement in evidence states $420 and one revision. Elena's description of other communications is not enough to establish what Curtis was told or what he accepted when he said “go ahead.” 11. Curtis's explanation is not independently verified, and the court does not find that the quote conclusively proves the redesign was included. But the burden is Elena's, not Curtis's, to prove the basis for the additional payment. The ambiguity about what counts as a revision leaves the scope uncertain; it does not supply proof that Curtis agreed to pay $180. On this record, Elena has not established an agreement to the additional charge. The issue of agreement is therefore not proven. 12. The revision-scope issue is also not proven in Elena's favor. The quote's limit of one revision is clear, but its boundary is not. The record lacks details about any earlier revision and the specific changes in the redesign beyond Curtis's general description that it changed the banner layout. The court cannot conclude that the redesign exceeded the included revision. This finding is limited to the evidence presented and does not establish that the redesign necessarily fell within the package in every respect. 13. Elena's reference to Rule 17: Business Partners Owe Loyalty does not change the result. The record does not establish a dispute about self-dealing, diverted opportunities, or misuse of entrusted authority; the dispute presented is whether an extra price was agreed. The supplied rule does not provide a basis to award the invoice on these facts. Curtis's alternative request for a reduced award does not require a different result: no additional payment agreement or amount has been proven, and the only amount sought is the $180 invoice. Final order 14. Judgment is entered for Curtis Nolan. Elena Brooks's claim for $180 is denied. Curtis owes no additional payment on the claim presented. The original $420 package was paid, and this judgment does not order repayment of that amount or decide any other claim. No additional relief is awarded.