District Court awards $12,000 balance in dispute over digital catalog preview

The District Court ordered Martin Keene to pay Elena Voss the $12,000 balance on a digital catalog contract, finding that his use of the catalog for a customer preview established acceptance. Presiding judge Kapten entered judgment for Voss on November 7, 2026, but declined her request for additional costs.

The dispute turned on whether Keene could withhold payment because the catalog lacked category and price filters, and whether showing it to customers amounted to acceptance rather than a test.

The signed agreement required a searchable digital catalog but did not expressly require the disputed filters. The judge gave the agreement greater weight than Keene’s recollection of an additional promise, for which he could identify no written record or other sufficiently persuasive evidence.

The May 14 checklist showed that the filters were unfinished, but did not establish that they were required deliverables. The catalog had searchable product pages and descriptions, and Keene identified no specific lost sale or customer prevented from purchasing because the filters were missing.

The agreement made the balance payable on acceptance without defining acceptance or requiring written sign-off. Although Keene said the preview was only a test and promptly objected to the missing filters, the judge found acceptance sufficiently established by delivery and actual customer use.

The judge also considered that Keene gave no separate correction deadline or further opportunity before withholding payment, while Voss did not establish that she offered to add the filters. The court found no proven contractual basis for withholding the entire balance.

Voss said Keene hired her to build the catalog for $20,000 and that his customer preview showed he had accepted the working product. She maintained that the filters were optional and sought the remaining $12,000 plus recoverable costs.

Keene said he expected a complete catalog with category and price filters for a May 1 sales event in Denver. He maintained that the customer preview was a limited test, not acceptance, and that he told Voss on May 15 the filters needed fixing before he would sign off.

Keene had paid $8,000 under the agreement. The judge found that he supplied 18 product descriptions on April 28, after Voss had requested them by April 20; Voss said the late material made the May 1 target impossible.

The parties disagreed over whether May 15 replaced the original deadline or was merely a review date. A calendar invitation referred to a catalog review and revised target, but the judge found it did not conclusively resolve the dispute; the original target had been affected by the late descriptions.

Voss delivered the working catalog on May 14. The court awarded no additional costs because she had not provided sufficiently specific evidence of their amount and recoverability.