Original in-game verdict

Background 1. Nina Bell seeks $240 from Owen Mercer for formatting forty individually labeled menu sheets. The record identifies the dispute as whether Owen agreed to pay that amount separately from a $600 menu price. The record does not state that Nina seeks any other relief, and this judgment addresses only the additional $240 charge. 2. The parties have each had an opportunity to explain their positions. Nina says the $600 quote covered one master menu design and that Owen approved the additional work. Owen says he understood the $600 price to include the sheets, promptly objected when the invoice arrived, and cannot provide the original quote or another record of its wording. He acknowledges that the sheets were used. Issues for determination 3. The sole material issue is whether Nina has proved that Owen agreed to pay an additional $240 for formatting the forty sheets. Under Rule 1, the party seeking relief must support the request with specific facts, records, or testimony. Nina therefore bears the burden of proving the agreement on which her claim depends. Submissions of the parties 4. Nina states that the $600 quote specified one master menu design and that Owen expressly approved the additional $240 work. In her final submission, she refers to a text approving the work before completion. The text itself is not included in the hearing record. Her submissions are allegations and arguments, not independent proof of the text’s contents or of what was disclosed before work began. 5. Owen disputes that the $600 quote clearly excluded the sheets. He says he understood the price to cover a print-ready menu including them. He relies on his same-day email response to the invoice, in which he said he thought the sheets were included and had not meant to approve another bill. He asks that the charge be denied or limited to an amount the evidence shows he agreed to pay. No evidence in this record establishes a different amount he agreed to pay. Evidence and findings 6. The presented email exhibit, identified as exhibit-2-e2 and repeated as exhibit-4-e2 and exhibit-6-e2, shows Nina’s invoice requesting “$240 — formatting forty individually labeled menu sheets.” It also records Owen’s same-day reply: “I paid the $600 menu price. I thought those sheets were included. We used them, but I never meant to approve another bill.” The repeated entries describe the same email, not three separate communications. I treat it as one presented record. 7. The email is relevant and contemporaneous to the dispute. It supports that Nina billed $240 for the described work and that Owen promptly disputed the separate charge while acknowledging use of the sheets. The exhibit is identified as an email and is presented as a moderately strong record, but the record supplies no further authentication details. I give it weight for what it directly records, without treating it as conclusive proof of the original deal. In particular, Owen’s statement of his understanding is evidence of his position, not proof by itself that the quote included the sheets. 8. Nina’s statement that the quote specified one master design and her assertion that Owen approved the extra work support her account as allegations. But the quote is unavailable, and the text Nina refers to is not presented. The record therefore does not establish the exact quote wording, the text’s contents, or what Nina told Owen about the separate price before doing the work. Owen’s inability to produce the quote likewise does not establish that his understanding was correct; it leaves the terms uncertain. 9. Owen’s admission that the sheets were used supports that the work was delivered and used. It does not, without more, establish that he agreed to pay a separate $240. The invoice establishes the amount Nina requested after the work, not that Owen accepted that amount beforehand. Reasons 10. Rule 18 provides that business records such as invoices and emails can establish what the parties agreed to do. Here, the available email is useful evidence of the later invoice and Owen’s immediate response, but it does not record the original quote or an advance approval. The missing quote and unproduced text are not treated as evidence against either party; their absence means the record does not resolve the terms Nina must prove. 11. Rule 38 states that an unexpected fee is weaker when it was not clearly disclosed before the customer committed. The record does not establish whether Nina clearly disclosed the separate $240 price before doing the work. Owen’s same-day objection supports that he disputed the charge promptly, but it does not conclusively prove what was said earlier. The uncertainty matters because Nina bears the burden of showing agreement to the separate charge, not because Owen must prove that the sheets were included. 12. Nina’s account may be accurate, and the work was used. But the evidence presented does not establish the essential point: that Owen agreed to pay $240 separately before the work was done. The invoice and use of the sheets cannot fill that gap. Applying Rule 1, the claim is not proven. Owen’s alternative request to limit any award to an amount shown to have been agreed does not support a smaller award because the record establishes no agreed separate amount. Final order 13. Judgment is entered for defendant Owen Mercer on Nina Bell’s claim for the additional $240. The claim is denied, and Owen owes Nina no payment under this claim. No amount is awarded to either party. This order decides only the additional charge presented in this record; it does not determine any other payment or dispute between the parties.