Original in-game verdict

Background 1. Nolan Beck seeks $160 from Erin Walsh for forty workshop programs beyond an original order of one hundred. The original order records a price of $4 per program and Erin’s payment of $400. The dispute is limited to whether Erin agreed to buy the additional forty programs. Nolan asks for the full $160; Erin asks that the added charge be denied, or reduced if the evidence supports less. Issues for determination 2. The first issue is whether Erin agreed to buy the extra forty programs. Nolan bears the burden of supporting his request with facts, records, or testimony. The second issue is whether the claimed amount is supported. The record supports the arithmetic of $160 if an extra purchase was agreed, but that calculation does not itself establish an agreement or a debt. Submissions of the parties 3. Nolan’s side argues that Erin asked for forty more at the same price, Nolan understood that request as approval, printed the programs, and Erin collected the bundle. It says Erin should pay the same $4 unit price as for the original order. Nolan’s side also suggests that Erin would have noticed the extra programs after taking the bundle home. 4. Erin’s side argues that her message was a question, not a confirmed order, and that the screenshot ends before any reply. Erin admits collecting the bundle but denies agreeing at pickup to pay for forty extras. She points to the original order and receipt, which document only one hundred programs and payment of $400. Evidence and findings 5. The original order and paid receipt are clear records of one hundred programs at $4 each and payment of $400. They establish the original transaction, not a later order. The same record is presented by both sides and is not meaningfully disputed. 6. The screenshot is readable and shows Erin’s message: “Could you do forty more for tomorrow? Same price?” It is an incomplete conversation. It establishes that Erin raised the possibility of forty more programs and referred to the same price. It does not show Nolan’s response, an acceptance, or any other confirmation. The screenshot is relevant but cannot, by itself, prove a completed agreement. 7. Nolan’s saved client account, relayed through counsel, says he understood the message as approval, printed the programs, and Erin collected the bundle without objecting. This is an attributed account, not an independently verified document or admitted witness testimony. Nolan’s side also says he cannot recall what Erin said at pickup. Erin’s submission admits collection but says she did not agree there to pay for the extras. The record therefore establishes collection, but the accounts conflict about the significance of that event and there is no independent record of the pickup conversation. 8. Nolan’s later submission asks why he should be the only one with the screenshot and suggests Erin would have noticed the extra programs. Those points do not add evidence of acceptance. The record does not establish what Erin knew about the bundle’s contents when she collected it or afterward. Reasons 9. Under Rule 1, the party seeking relief must point to specific facts, records, or testimony supporting the request. Rule 2 gives greater weight to reliable records than to vague recollections, and Rule 18 recognizes that business records can show what the parties actually agreed to do. Applying those supplied rules, Nolan must prove that Erin agreed to the additional purchase. Erin does not have to disprove an agreement that Nolan has not established. 10. Erin’s message is evidence in Nolan’s favor: it shows she was considering or requesting forty more programs at the same price. But its wording is a question, and the available screenshot contains no answer. Nolan’s understanding that the question meant approval is relevant, but it is his interpretation; the record does not show that he communicated acceptance or obtained confirmation before printing. Printing the programs proves Nolan acted on his understanding, not that Erin agreed to pay. 11. Collection of the bundle also supports Nolan’s position to some extent. But collection alone does not resolve whether Erin knew it contained forty additional programs or accepted a charge for them. Nolan cannot recall the pickup conversation, and Erin denies agreeing to the charge. With no independent confirmation, the evidence does not establish the agreement on which the claim depends. The uncertainty is material and falls against Nolan because he bears the burden of proof. The issue of agreement is therefore not proven. 12. The amount calculation is different. The original record establishes a $4 unit price, and Erin’s message refers to the same price. Forty multiplied by $4 is $160. The amount is supported as a calculation, but Rule 6 requires a remedy to match a proven obligation or harm. Since Nolan has not proven that Erin agreed to buy the extra programs, the supported arithmetic does not justify an award. 13. Nolan’s side cited Rule 17 concerning loyalty by business partners. The record does not establish that Nolan and Erin were business partners, that either held entrusted authority over the other, or that there was self-dealing or a diverted opportunity. That rule does not resolve this dispute. The decision rests on the supplied rules about proof, reliable records, business records, and a proportionate remedy. Final order 14. Judgment is entered for Erin Walsh. Nolan Beck’s claim for the additional $160 is denied in full. Erin owes Nolan no additional amount on the claim presented in this hearing. The original $400 payment for the documented one hundred programs is not disputed and is not altered by this judgment. No additional relief is granted.