Original in-game verdict

Background 1. Erin Bellamy seeks return of $240 paid to Bramble Equipment Rental LLC for a carpet-cleaner reservation. The receipt states that a customer may cancel by phone or in person before 5 p.m. the day before pickup for a full refund, and that later cancellations are nonrefundable. The pickup was scheduled for June 14, 2026. 2. The parties’ dispute is narrow. Erin says she called at 4:46 p.m. on June 13, before the stated deadline. Bramble relies on a booking-screen entry showing cancellation saved at 5:18 p.m. The record does not contain a call recording or call record confirming when Erin gave notice. Erin has said she cannot identify the employee who answered and has no further detail or record to provide. Issues for determination 3. The issues are whether the receipt’s refund promise applies to this reservation and whether Erin proved that she canceled before the deadline required by that promise. 4. Under Rule 37, a seller or service provider is held to specific promises about price, quality, timing, and deliverables. Under Rule 1, the side asking for relief must point to facts, records, or testimony supporting the request. Rule 2 recognizes that reliable records generally carry more weight than unsupported recollections. Erin therefore must prove the facts that make the promised refund due, including timely cancellation. Submissions of the parties 5. Erin argues that the receipt establishes Bramble’s promise and that the 5:18 p.m. screen entry records only when Bramble saved the cancellation, not when she called. She says she called at 4:46 p.m. and asks for the full $240 refund. She acknowledges that she cannot identify the employee or provide independent confirmation of the call time. 6. Bramble argues that the 5:18 p.m. entry and the lack of a recording or call record leave Erin’s claimed 4:46 p.m. call unproven. Bramble asks that the refund claim be denied. Bramble also characterizes Erin’s account as untrue, but offers no separate evidence establishing when the call occurred. Evidence and findings 7. The receipt, presented as exhibits 3 and 7, is direct documentary evidence of the $240 payment and the cancellation term. The two presented copies state the same terms. Nothing in the record provides a reason to doubt their authenticity or relevance. I find that Erin paid $240 and that Bramble promised a full refund if she canceled by phone or in person before 5 p.m. the day before pickup. 8. Erin’s submissions consistently attribute to her a call at 4:46 p.m. This is evidence in the form of her account, but it is not an independent call record or testimony from the person who answered. Erin candidly acknowledges the limits of that account: she cannot identify the employee, and no recording or call record is available. The record does not establish that her account is false; it also does not independently confirm the precise time she gives. 9. Bramble’s submissions report that its booking screen records cancellation at 5:18 p.m. That entry supports a finding that the cancellation was saved in the system at that time. It does not, on the evidence presented, establish when Erin first gave notice. Bramble’s argument that the entry proves Erin did not call earlier goes beyond what the entry itself shows. The entry is relevant, but its weight is limited to the recorded save time. Reasons 10. The refund promise is established. The receipt states the condition and the amount, and Rule 37 requires Bramble to honor a specific consumer promise when its conditions are met. The remaining question is whether Erin met the deadline. 11. Erin bears the burden of proving timely cancellation because she seeks the refund and timely cancellation is a condition of the promise. Her account supports her position, and the 5:18 p.m. entry does not disprove it. But the account’s precise timing is not corroborated by a call record, recording, identified employee, or other evidence in this record. Erin has confirmed that no further such proof is available. 12. Bramble’s evidence does not establish that the call occurred after 5 p.m. The court therefore does not find that Erin necessarily called late, and does not accept Bramble’s unsupported assertion that her account is untrue. But the weakness of Bramble’s inference does not supply the proof Erin needs. Under Rule 1, uncertainty on an essential fact assigned to Erin’s burden means that timely cancellation has not been proven. Rule 2 supports giving weight to the documented payment, refund term, and saved-entry time, while recognizing that none of those records establishes the actual call time. 13. The court has considered the full record, including Erin’s final explanation and Bramble’s response. Erin’s final statement candidly identifies the evidentiary gap but adds no independent confirmation. Bramble’s final response repeats the same screen-entry point and likewise adds no evidence of when notice was given. The record is complete for decision; no further obtainable proof has been identified. Final order 14. The court finds that the refund promise and $240 payment are established, but that Erin has not proven she canceled before 5 p.m. The condition for a refund is therefore not established on this record. 15. Erin Bellamy’s claim for a $240 refund is denied. Judgment is entered for Bramble Equipment Rental LLC. No payment is ordered from either party to the other. This judgment decides only the claim and evidence presented here; it does not find that Erin’s account of a 4:46 p.m. call was false.