Original in-game verdict

Background 1. Nora Feldman seeks $240 from Caleb Benton for separate lunch and evening menu versions. She says she quoted that additional price and Caleb then approved the work. Caleb says the original $360 menu-overhaul agreement covered both meal services and that he did not agree to an extra charge. 2. The record includes a screenshot showing Caleb's message: “Go ahead with the lunch and evening versions. Same colors, please.” The screenshot begins at that message and does not show the preceding exchange. Nora acknowledged that she has only this cropped screenshot and cannot provide the full exchange. The record does not include the text of the signed $360 agreement, an invoice for the extra work, or other documentation of the price discussion. Issues for determination 3. The central issue is whether Nora proved that Caleb agreed to pay an additional $240 for the two versions. Nora bears the burden because she is asking the court to order payment. The supplied Rule 1 requires a claim for relief to rest on specific facts, records, or testimony. Rule 2 gives greater weight to reliable records than to unsupported recollections, and Rule 18 recognizes that business records can establish what the parties agreed to do. Submissions of the parties 4. Nora argues that she quoted $240 for the separate versions, asked whether she should proceed, and received Caleb's approval. She says the timing and wording of his message show acceptance of the offer. She seeks only the $240 and accepts that the screenshot alone does not show the price or the preceding exchange. 5. Caleb argues that the original agreement was for a general menu overhaul and did not limit the work to one meal service. He says both menus were therefore included in the $360 fee. He also emphasizes that there is no signed add-on and that the full correspondence is unavailable. He asks that Nora's claim be denied. Evidence and findings 6. The screenshot is a presented exhibit, not an automatically conclusive record. Its visible text is relevant to whether Caleb authorized the work, and it directly shows that he approved lunch and evening versions. Its cropped form limits what it can establish about the surrounding discussion. The screenshot contains no price, no statement that the work would cost an additional $240, and no express acknowledgment of that charge. The three exhibit entries in the record describe the same cropped message; they do not provide separate corroboration of the missing exchange. 7. Nora's account that the quote preceded the approval is a specific allegation, but the record contains no complete message exchange or other record confirming that sequence. Nora candidly acknowledged this limitation in statements 5 and 7. Her account remains relevant, but its weight is limited because the key price-acceptance detail cannot be checked against the available message. 8. Caleb's account that the original agreement included both menus is also not established by the agreement's actual words, which are not in the record. The court therefore does not find as a fact that the original agreement did include both menus. Nor does the court find that a signed add-on was legally required: no supplied rule imposes that requirement. These limits do not shift Nora's burden to Caleb. The question is whether Nora proved agreement to the additional price. Reasons 9. The screenshot supports Nora on an important but narrower point: Caleb approved making the lunch and evening versions. It does not, by itself, establish that he knew those versions would cost an additional $240. Approval of work and agreement to its price are distinct matters in this dispute. The claimed sequence could support Nora if reliably established, but the record does not independently confirm that Caleb saw the quote before sending his approval. 10. Rule 1 places the burden of supporting the requested payment on Nora. Rule 2 favors reliable records where the parties' accounts differ, and Rule 18 points to business records as useful evidence of the deal. Here, the available business record confirms approval of the versions but leaves the price unanswered. Nora's explanation is not rejected as dishonest; rather, the available proof does not establish the essential price agreement sufficiently to order payment. 11. Caleb's argument about the original agreement is not fully proven either, because its wording is absent. But Caleb does not bear the burden of proving that the $360 agreement included both menus in order to defeat this claim. The court can deny the requested extra payment because Nora has not proven that Caleb agreed to it, without deciding the precise scope of the original agreement. The absence of a signed add-on is considered as context, not as an independent legal bar. 12. Nora seeks no other damages, and the record supplies no basis for awarding any other relief. Because the only requested amount depends on proof of agreement to the additional charge, the claim fails in full. No adjournment is available under the supplied case directions, and Nora has stated that the fuller exchange cannot be produced. Repeating that request would not add evidence; the remaining uncertainty must be resolved under Nora's burden. Final order 13. Judgment is entered for Caleb Benton. Nora Feldman's claim for $240 is denied. Caleb owes Nora no payment under this claim, and no monetary award is made to either party. This order decides only the requested additional $240 on the record presented; it does not determine the exact scope of the original $360 agreement beyond what the evidence establishes.