Madison small claims court denies $240 menu-design claim over missing proof of price approval

The small claims court in Madison denied Nora Feldman’s request for an additional $240 for designing separate lunch and evening café menus. It entered judgment for Caleb Benton, finding that Feldman had not proved he agreed to the extra charge. Neither party received a monetary award.

The dispute turned on the difference between approving work and accepting its price. Benton had paid the original $360 design fee and approved making two menu versions. But the available message did not establish that his approval followed an additional-price quote he had seen.

The central exhibit was a cropped screenshot beginning with Benton’s approval message. It showed authorization for lunch and evening versions, but contained no price, notice of an extra charge or acknowledgment that another $240 would be payable.

Feldman maintained that she had quoted the additional fee before receiving approval. However, she acknowledged that she could not produce the full exchange. The court had neither the signed agreement’s text nor an invoice or other documentation confirming the price discussion. Repeated entries describing the same screenshot did not provide independent corroboration.

Because Feldman sought an order requiring payment, she had to establish agreement to the added price. The court applied the supplied rules requiring factual support for relief and favoring reliable records when accounts differ. Her explanation was not rejected as dishonest; it was insufficiently supported on the decisive point.

Benton’s competing interpretation also remained unproven. Without the original contract’s wording, the court could not find that both menus were included. Nor did any supplied rule require a signed add-on. Those gaps did not relieve Feldman of proving acceptance of the extra fee.

Approval of work and agreement to its price are distinct matters in this dispute.

Feldman argued that the sequence established an agreement: she quoted $240 for two versions, asked whether to proceed and received approval for that specific work. She sought only the additional design fee, while conceding that the screenshot alone did not prove acceptance of its price.

Benton argued that a general menu overhaul for a café serving lunch and dinner reasonably covered both services. He relied on the original fee, the absence of a signed amendment and the missing correspondence, asking the court to deny the claim.

The parties’ initial arrangement was for a usable café menu at a $360 fee, which Benton paid, with two rounds of revisions included. Their disagreement arose when he requested separate lunch and evening versions: Feldman treated them as additional work, while Benton understood them as included revisions.

The judgment resolves only the requested $240 on the evidence presented. It does not establish the precise scope of the original agreement or make a signed amendment a prerequisite for extra payment. The missing price discussion, rather than a definitive interpretation of the original contract, determined the outcome.