Original in-game verdict

Background 1. Leah Mercer seeks $180 from Owen Bell for additional menu-design work. The parties agree that Owen accepted a $420 design package, paid that amount, and received two revision rounds. The dispute concerns work requested after those two rounds had been used. 2. The hearing record includes the accepted design quote and the parties’ accounts of their later exchange. Both sides have had an opportunity to explain their positions. No further obtainable proof is identified, and adjournment is not available. Issues for determination 3. The first issue is whether Leah proved that Owen approved an additional revision as paid work, as the quote required. Leah bears the burden of proving this claim. 4. The second issue is whether Leah proved that Owen agreed to pay the particular amount of $180. Leah also bears the burden on that issue. Submissions of the parties 5. Leah says the two included rounds were complete, she told Owen the requested work was extra, and he replied, “Go ahead,” while asking for the revised menu by the next day. She understood that response as approval to pay for the extra work. Leah seeks $180, while acknowledging that she cannot show Owen was told or agreed to that specific amount before the work. 6. Owen says he understood Leah’s reference to extra work as meaning that the work required more effort, not that she was asking for an additional payment. He argues that Leah did not clearly tell him there would be a fee. He asks that the claim be denied. Evidence and findings 7. The accepted quote, presented as exhibit-3-e1 and repeated in exhibits 5-e1, 7-e1, and 9-e1, states that the $420 menu-design package included two revision rounds and that additional revisions required approval of an added fee. Owen’s reply, “Agreed,” and the parties’ accounts establish acceptance of that quote. The parties also agree that Owen paid $420 and that two rounds occurred before the disputed request. I find those matters established. 8. The quote establishes that the package had a limit and that an added fee required approval. It does not state the amount of any later fee, nor does it establish that Owen approved a particular extra charge. The repeated copies of the quote are the same evidence, not separate confirmation of the later exchange. 9. Leah’s submissions (statements 1, 3, 5, 7, and 9) consistently describe her understanding that Owen’s “Go ahead” approved paid extra work. Owen’s submissions (statements 4, 6, and 8) dispute that understanding and say he thought Leah was willing to do the work without an added charge. These are competing accounts. Neither the quote nor another presented item independently resolves what Owen understood or what Leah communicated before the work. I do not treat either party’s assertion as conclusive merely because it was repeated. 10. Leah expressly acknowledges that no available message shows Owen was told the $180 amount before the work or agreed to that amount. The record contains no other proof of a communicated or accepted price. Reasons 11. The supplied law, Wis. Stat. § 799.209(1), calls for an informal proceeding in which each party may present arguments and proof to disclose the facts. It does not supply a special rule that removes Leah’s burden to prove the claim. I have considered the parties’ everyday accounts and the presented quote without requiring legal terminology or additional formal proof. 12. On approval, Leah has shown that the quote required an added fee to be approved and that Owen said “Go ahead” after, according to Leah, she described the work as extra. That evidence supports her position. But Owen disputes that he understood the words as approval of a charge, and the record does not otherwise establish the precise exchange. The quote’s requirement makes the distinction important: permission to do work is not, on this record, enough to establish approval of an added fee. Weighing the competing accounts and the available evidence, Leah has not proved that Owen approved paid extra work. This issue is not proven. 13. The amount presents a separate and clearer gap. Even if the exchange could establish approval to proceed with some paid extra work, Leah has not proved that Owen agreed to $180. The quote contains no such price, and Leah acknowledges no evidence that Owen was told that amount before the work. The court cannot infer agreement to the precise amount claimed merely from “Go ahead.” This issue is not proven. 14. Owen’s argument succeeds because Leah has not met her burden on the required approval and the claimed amount, not because the court finds as an established fact that Owen’s interpretation is the only possible one. The record supports the $420 package and its two-round limit, but those facts alone do not establish liability for the additional $180. Final order 15. Judgment is entered for defendant Owen Bell. Plaintiff Leah Mercer’s claim for $180 is denied. Owen owes Leah no amount on the claim presented. The $420 package payment is undisputed and is not awarded or refunded by this judgment. No other relief is granted.