Madison small claims court denies $300 menu-design claim because final PDF delivery was not proven

The small claims court in Madison denied Nora Bellamy’s claim for the remaining $300 on a café menu-design contract, finding that delivery of the final printable PDF—the agreed trigger for payment—had not been proven. It entered judgment for Evan Rusk and also denied Bellamy’s requests for court costs and an order preventing him from using or displaying the design.

The dispute turned on the difference between approving a menu’s layout and receiving its finished printable file. Bellamy maintained that she had completed the design and exhausted the included revision; Rusk argued that his layout approval did not mean the final menu had been delivered.

The accepted $600 quote acknowledged a $300 deposit and made the balance payable on delivery of the final printable PDF. The court found no evidence that Rusk agreed to reverse that sequence and pay before receiving the file.

The delivery email described its attachment as an updated proof and asked Rusk to confirm that it was ready to print. His response approved the layout but requested changes to the soup and sandwich prices before the final version. That exchange established limited approval, not final delivery; the record did not independently establish whether the attachment was print-ready.

An earlier text exchange showed that Rusk agreed to use the included revision for larger headings and relocation of the drinks section. But the quote did not define a revision, and the messages did not settle whether the later price changes were extra work or necessary to finish the menu.

That uncertainty did not establish that the price changes were included. It meant Bellamy had not proven they fell outside the agreement. Even if they were extra, the record showed neither an agreed additional charge nor a changed payment trigger. The court also found insufficient evidence supporting costs or a restriction on use of the design.

Bellamy’s side argued that Rusk had approved the layout after using his included revision, making the later price requests additional work. It maintained that she was justified in withholding the final file until he paid. Her claim was for the original balance, not an extra revision fee.

Rusk acknowledged both his layout approval and the earlier revision agreement. He nevertheless argued that the written payment condition remained unmet: a proof was not the final printable PDF, and he had not agreed to pay first. He asked the court to deny or reduce the balance unless final delivery was shown.

The project concerned a menu for Kettle Finch Café in Madison. After receiving the deposit and making the heading and drinks-section changes, Bellamy sent the updated proof. Rusk then requested a soup price of $7 and a sandwich price of $11.

The judgment resolves the claims on the available record without deciding whether those price changes were actually extra work. Whether the café uses or displays the design also remains unknown. The decisive gap was proof that the contractual condition for the remaining payment had been met.