Original in-game verdict

Background 1. Elina Rantala, the plaintiff, seeks €240 from Oskari Lehtinen, the defendant, for menu changes. The parties’ accepted quotation set a price of €480 for menu design, including one revision round, and stated that additional revisions would be billed separately. It did not state a rate or method for calculating the price of additional work. 2. The parties’ messages show that Oskari requested a lunch section and price changes. Elina replied that she understood the included revision had been finished and said she would bill this round separately. Oskari responded, “Go ahead, we need the menu ready.” The messages contain no euro amount and do not expressly confirm that the included revision had already been used. Issues for determination 3. The material questions are whether the plaintiff proved that the requested work was outside the included revision and authorized as separately billed work, and whether the plaintiff proved that €240 was a supported amount for that work. The plaintiff seeks payment of €240. The defendant asks that the claim be refused. 4. No supplied law states a different burden or provides a formula for setting the charge. The plaintiff, as the party seeking payment, must establish the material basis and amount of the claim on the record presented. The findings below are limited to that record. Submissions of the parties 5. The plaintiff argues that the quotation limited the €480 price to one revision and that Oskari’s “Go ahead” followed an express warning that the requested round would be billed separately. The plaintiff says this supports authorization for separately billed work. The plaintiff acknowledges that Oskari did not expressly agree to €240, that the quotation contains no rate, and that no separate record explains the calculation. The plaintiff nevertheless asks for the full invoice amount. 6. The defendant argues that Oskari agreed to the changes, not to pay an extra fee. The defendant emphasizes that the messages do not establish that the included revision had been used, and that neither the messages nor the quotation state a €240 price or calculation method. Oskari’s saved account says he understood “go ahead” as permission to make the changes, not agreement to a particular fee. That account is attributed to Oskari through counsel; it is not an independently verified document or admitted witness testimony. Evidence and findings 7. The accepted quotation is presented as an email accepted by Oskari. It is relevant evidence of the agreed scope: one revision was included, and additional revisions were to be billed separately. Its terms are clear on that distinction but incomplete as to the price of additional revisions. The quotation does not establish that the included revision had been used before the changes at issue. 8. The full WhatsApp exchange is presented by both sides. Its wording is consistent across the exhibits. It shows that Elina gave notice that she considered the round separately billable and that Oskari told her to proceed. It does not state a price. Nor does it establish whether Elina’s understanding that the included revision was finished was correct. The parties’ competing interpretations of “Go ahead” are arguments about the meaning of the same exchange, not separate proof of what was agreed beyond its words. 9. The plaintiff’s submissions and invoice request identify €240 as the amount claimed. The plaintiff expressly acknowledges that the record contains no separate support for how that amount was calculated. The quotation and messages do not supply that missing calculation. The amount claimed is therefore not, by itself, proof that €240 was agreed or otherwise supported. Reasons 10. On authorization and scope, the plaintiff has shown more than a bare request to complete work. Elina expressly told Oskari that she would bill the round separately, and he replied, “Go ahead.” This is meaningful evidence that he proceeded after receiving notice of her position. It weighs against the defendant’s suggestion that the separate-billing warning can simply be ignored. 11. But notice and permission to proceed do not resolve whether this particular work was chargeable under the quotation. The quotation included one revision, and the messages do not establish that it had already been used. Elina’s statement that she understood it was finished proves that she held that understanding; it does not establish that the parties had in fact used the included revision. Oskari’s contrary account is also not conclusive, but the uncertainty remains. Because the plaintiff must prove that the work fell outside the included scope, that uncertainty means the plaintiff has not established this issue. 12. The amount is independently unproven. The quotation says additional revisions are billed separately, but does not set a price. The messages contain no amount. The plaintiff has acknowledged that there is no separate evidence explaining the €240 calculation. The court cannot infer that the full amount claimed was agreed merely because an invoice was issued. The plaintiff has therefore not proved that €240 is payable, even if the work had been separately chargeable. 13. The defendant’s argument succeeds to the extent that the plaintiff has not proved the basis and amount of the claim. It does not establish that Oskari could never be responsible for separately billed work: the message exchange includes a clear warning and a direction to proceed. But the court must decide this claim on the evidence actually supplied, not on what might have been agreed or what a further record might show. No adjournment is available, and the remaining gaps are resolved against the party bearing the burden. Final order 14. The plaintiff’s claim for €240 is denied. Judgment is entered for the defendant, Oskari Lehtinen, on this claim. No payment is ordered from the defendant to the plaintiff. This order decides only the €240 claim on the record presented; it does not determine what amount, if any, might have been agreed for other work or on evidence not before the court.