Signed judgment

JUDGMENT Findings of Fact 1. Having considered the testimony of both parties and the documentary evidence, the court makes the following findings: 2. The parties entered into an agreement under which Elena Voss would build a digital catalog for Martin Keene for a total price of $20,000. 3. Martin paid $8,000, leaving an outstanding balance of $12,000. 4. The signed agreement required a searchable digital catalog, set May 1 as the launch target, and made the remaining $12,000 payable upon acceptance. 5. The agreement did not expressly require category or price filters and did not define the precise conditions constituting acceptance. 6. Martin supplied 18 product descriptions on April 28, although Elena had requested them by April 20. 7. Elena testified that, before May 1, she informed Martin that the late descriptions would prevent completion by the original target. 8. The parties dispute whether May 15 replaced May 1 as the delivery deadline. The calendar invitation referring to a “catalog review / revised target” does not conclusively resolve that dispute. 9. Elena delivered a working, searchable catalog on May 14. It contained product descriptions and product pages that customers could view. 10. Martin proposed showing the catalog to customers and used it for a customer preview. 11. The May 14 checklist identified category and price filters as unfinished. 12. On May 15, Martin objected to the missing filters and stated that he would not sign off until they were fixed. 13. Martin did not provide a separate deadline or further opportunity for Elena to correct the alleged defects. Elena did not establish that she offered to add the filters. 14. Martin has not identified any specific customer who was prevented from purchasing or any particular sale lost because the filters were missing. Reasons 15. A party seeking relief must support its claim with specific facts, records, or testimony. Elena has supported her payment claim with the signed agreement, evidence of delivery, proof of the $8,000 payment, and Martin’s use of the catalog for a customer preview. These records establish the contractual relationship, partial payment, and delivery of a functioning product. 16. Martin has not established that the missing filters were an agreed contractual requirement. His recollection of an additional promise is not supported by a written record or other sufficiently persuasive evidence. The court therefore finds that Elena has provided stronger evidence supporting her claim to payment. 17. The signed agreement and payment record provide reliable evidence of the contractual terms and payment made. The May 14 checklist shows that the filters remained unfinished, and Martin’s May 15 message shows that he raised his objection promptly. The calendar invitation supports the existence of a discussion concerning a revised target, but its wording is insufficient to prove that May 15 formally replaced May 1. The court gives appropriate weight to these records and does not treat either party’s recollection as conclusive where documentary evidence is absent. 18. Martin and Elena disagree about whether May 15 was a revised delivery deadline or merely a review date. Neither party produced written confirmation resolving that disagreement. The court therefore does not find that a revised deadline was conclusively agreed. This uncertainty does not establish that Elena breached the contract, particularly because the original May 1 target was affected by Martin’s late provision of the product descriptions. 19. Martin raised the missing-filter issue on May 15, one day after the preview. The court considers this prompt notice and does not find that Martin concealed his dissatisfaction or raised the issue after an unreasonable delay. Prompt notice, however, does not independently establish that the alleged defect constituted a contractual breach. The court must first determine whether the missing features were required under the agreement. 20. Martin did not provide a separate correction deadline or another opportunity for Elena to address the missing filters before withholding the remaining balance. Elena also did not establish that she offered to provide those filters. The court considers both parties’ conduct. Nevertheless, Martin’s decision to withhold the entire balance without establishing that the missing features were contractual requirements was disproportionate to the proven shortcomings. 21. Elena seeks the outstanding $12,000 contractual balance, which the agreement identifies as payable upon acceptance. The court does not award additional costs because Elena has not provided sufficiently specific evidence establishing their amount and recoverability. 22. Martin’s belief that Elena promised category and price filters is insufficient to establish that such a promise was made. He acknowledged that the signed agreement does not list those features and that he cannot identify a written record confirming the alleged promise. The court therefore does not find that the absence of these filters constitutes a proven contractual violation. 23. The signed agreement is the most important record in determining the scope of Elena’s obligations. It specifies a searchable catalog but does not expressly include category or price filters. The payment record confirms that Martin paid $8,000 of the agreed $20,000 price. The checklist confirms that the filters were unfinished, but does not establish that they were required deliverables. The court gives greater weight to the documented agreement than to Martin’s unsupported recollection of additional requirements. 24. The agreement requires a searchable catalog but does not expressly require category or price filters. Martin’s expectation that a complete commercial catalog should contain those features cannot, by itself, amend the signed agreement. No sufficiently reliable evidence establishes that Elena expressly undertook an additional obligation to provide them. The court therefore finds that the proven contractual scope was a searchable digital catalog, not necessarily a catalog containing the disputed filters. 25. The catalog was delivered with searchable product pages and descriptions and was used in a customer preview. Martin has not demonstrated that the missing filters prevented the catalog from serving its principal agreed function. He has also failed to identify any specific lost sale or customer who could not use the catalog because of the missing filters. Accordingly, even if the filters were considered a shortcoming in the delivered work, the evidence does not establish a sufficiently material breach to justify withholding the entire $12,000 balance. 26. The agreement makes the remaining $12,000 payable upon acceptance but does not define acceptance or require written sign-off. Martin argues that he never accepted the catalog and that the customer preview was merely a test. Elena argues that delivery and use of the catalog demonstrated acceptance. 27. The court considers the parties’ objective conduct. Martin proposed showing the catalog to actual customers and subsequently used it for that purpose. This demonstrates that the catalog had reached a functional stage suitable for customer-facing use. Although Martin subsequently refused to sign off, the agreement does not establish that written sign-off was the exclusive means of acceptance. The court therefore finds that acceptance is sufficiently established through delivery and actual customer use. 28. The court has considered Martin’s argument that category and price filters were part of the promised service. He has not established that Elena specifically promised those features. An expectation or assumption cannot be treated as an enforceable promise without sufficient supporting evidence. The signed agreement remains the strongest evidence of the agreed deliverables. 29. Martin informed Elena of the missing filters on May 15. However, he did not establish a separate deadline for correction or provide another opportunity before refusing the remaining payment. Elena stated that she considered the filters outside the agreed scope and did not recall offering to add them. The court does not find that Elena was necessarily obliged to correct features that were not part of the contract. Nevertheless, Martin’s decision to withhold the entire balance without establishing the contractual basis for doing so weighs against his defence. Overall Assessment 30. The central dispute concerns whether Elena fulfilled her contractual obligation and whether Martin was entitled to withhold the remaining payment. 31. The court finds that the signed agreement required a searchable digital catalog and that Elena delivered a functioning catalog meeting that requirement. 32. The missing category and price filters were not expressly included in the agreement. Martin has not produced sufficiently reliable evidence establishing a separate promise requiring them. 33. The original May 1 target was affected by Martin’s late provision of the product descriptions. Although the parties dispute whether May 15 became the revised deadline, the evidence establishes that Elena delivered the working catalog on May 14 and that Martin used it for a customer preview. 34. The court acknowledges that Martin never provided written acceptance and promptly objected to the missing filters. However, the agreement did not require written acceptance, and his conduct in arranging and using the customer preview supports a finding that the delivered catalog was accepted. 35. The court further finds that Martin has not established a material contractual breach, specific financial loss, or sufficient justification for withholding the entire outstanding balance. 36. Considering the evidence as a whole, Elena has established her entitlement to the remaining contractual payment. Order 37. Judgment is entered in favour of the plaintiff, Elena Voss. 38. The defendant, Martin Keene, shall pay Elena Voss the outstanding contractual balance of $12,000. 39. No additional costs are awarded because the plaintiff has not established sufficiently specific evidence supporting a separate award of recoverable costs. 40. The court finds that the defendant’s refusal to pay the remaining balance was not justified by the alleged absence of category and price filters, as their inclusion was not established as a contractual requirement. 41. The plaintiff’s claim is granted for $12,000.