Original in-game verdict

Background 1. Nora Bellamy brought this small-claims business dispute against Evan Rusk concerning a menu-design project. Nora seeks the remaining $300 of the agreed price, court costs, or alternatively an order preventing Evan from using or displaying the design. Evan asks the court to deny or reduce the payment request unless the agreed final-delivery condition is shown. 2. The parties’ accepted quote states a total price of $600, acknowledges a $300 deposit, includes one revision, and makes the remaining $300 due “on delivery of final printable PDF.” The quote does not define what counts as a revision. The record contains the quote, an email exchange about an updated proof and requested price changes, and an earlier text exchange about design revisions. The parties have both had an opportunity to address those records and their significance. Issues for determination 3. The issues are whether the final printable PDF was delivered or the payment term was changed; whether Evan’s requested price changes were outside the included revision; and whether the requested payment or other relief is supported by the record. Nora bears the burden of proving the facts supporting her requested relief under the supplied rule that a party seeking relief must point to supporting facts, records, or testimony. Submissions of the parties 4. Nora argues that Evan approved the layout, used the included revision for earlier changes, and then requested additional price changes. She says she was entitled to request the balance and hold the final file until payment. Her closing relies on the quote, the email thread, and the earlier text exchange. Evan responds that the quote makes delivery of the final printable PDF the payment trigger, that the email shows only a proof and a request for confirmation, and that layout approval was not acceptance of a final menu. He acknowledges requesting price changes but says the record does not settle whether they were extra work or part of finishing the menu. Evidence and findings 5. The accepted quote is a clear written record of the price, deposit, included revision, and payment condition. The repeated copies of that quote in the record do not constitute separate agreements; they reflect the same terms. The court finds that the remaining $300 was due on delivery of the final printable PDF, not merely on approval of the layout. 6. The email thread is direct evidence of what the parties communicated. Nora describes the attachment as an “updated menu proof PDF” and asks Evan to confirm it is ready to print. Evan replies that the layout looks good, requests that the soup and sandwich prices be changed before the final, and Nora responds that the included revision has already been used and requests the balance. This proves limited layout approval and a request for price changes. It does not prove that the final printable PDF was delivered. The record expressly does not independently establish whether the attachment was ready to print. 7. Nora’s saved client accounts say she sent a proof, not a final printable PDF, and that she was willing to send the final file after confirmation of the layout. These are attributed accounts relayed through counsel, not independently verified documents or admitted witness testimony. They are consistent with the email thread and support the finding that the final file was not shown to have been delivered. Nora’s closing assertion that she was justified in withholding it does not change the quote’s stated payment trigger. 8. The earlier text exchange is specific evidence that Evan asked for larger headings and a moved drinks section, Nora said she would use the included revision for those changes, and Evan agreed. It establishes that those particular changes used the included revision. The later email establishes that Evan requested two price changes and Nora said the revision had already been used. But the quote does not define a revision, and neither the email nor the text exchange says whether the price changes were extra work or necessary to complete the menu. The court does not find that either party’s characterization of that unresolved scope question is established. Reasons 9. Under the supplied rule that contract terms control first, the court applies the quote’s express payment condition. The supplied rule on conditions also requires the condition to occur or be excused before the dependent duty arises. Nora has not proven delivery of the final printable PDF. The email’s wording is important: it calls the attachment a proof and asks whether it is ready to print, while Evan’s response requests changes before the final. The record therefore supports Evan’s distinction between approval of the layout and delivery of the final file. 10. Nora argues that payment was due before final delivery because she was entitled to withhold the file after Evan requested additional work. But the accepted quote says the balance is due on delivery; no written message or other evidence shows that Evan agreed to change that sequence. Nora’s account that she was willing to deliver after payment is not proof that Evan accepted a revised payment term. The court cannot replace the written condition with a different one based only on one party’s position. The payment-trigger issue is not proven, and the $300 claim fails on that basis. 11. The revision issue is also not proven in Nora’s favor. The earlier exchange establishes that the included revision was used for the headings and drinks-section changes, but it does not define the scope of a revision or classify the later price changes. Evan’s inability to provide further details does not shift Nora’s burden to prove that the requested work was extra. The uncertainty is resolved against the party seeking relief on that point. This finding does not establish that the price changes were included; it means only that the record does not prove they were outside the agreement. 12. The court has considered whether the unresolved revision question could independently support an award. It cannot. Even if the later changes were extra, the record does not establish an agreed additional charge or a changed payment trigger, and the claim presented is for the remaining $300 under the quote. The court will not infer a separate amount or payment term that the record does not contain. 13. Nora’s alternative request to bar Evan from using or displaying the design is unsupported by specific evidence establishing a basis for that restriction. The supplied proportional-remedy rule requires the requested outcome to match a proven harm. The record does not establish the facts needed for that alternative relief. The request for court costs likewise has no specific supporting evidence in the record, so it is denied. Final order 14. Judgment is entered for defendant Evan Rusk. Plaintiff Nora Bellamy’s claim for the remaining $300 is denied because delivery of the final printable PDF, the agreed payment trigger, was not proven. Nora’s requests for court costs and for an order barring Evan from using or displaying the design are also denied. No payment is ordered from Evan to Nora, and no other relief is granted. This judgment resolves the claims on the available record; it does not decide whether the requested price changes were in fact extra work, only that Nora did not prove that point or the payment condition required for the relief sought.