Original in-game verdict

Background 1. Nurul Aina Rahman asks for the return of two folding tables or, if they cannot be returned, RM400. She says she bought the tables and left them with Lim Wei Jian temporarily while she lacked space. Lim says Nurul gave him the tables. The parties have each had an opportunity to explain their accounts and identify further evidence. The record is now complete for decision. 2. The court decides this claim only on the supplied hearing record and rules. The submissions are the parties’ accounts and arguments, not independent proof merely because they are stated in submissions. The receipt and the presented message excerpt are evidence, but their scope and limits must be considered. Issues for determination 3. The first issue is whether Nurul proved that the tables were left for safekeeping rather than given to Lim. Under Rule 1, the party seeking relief must support the facts needed for that relief. Under Rule 29, the court considers who has the better right to possess or control the property. Rule 2 directs the court to give reliable records weight while distinguishing what they do and do not show. 4. The second issue is whether Nurul proved a right to either requested remedy: return of the tables or RM400 if they cannot be returned. Rule 6 requires a remedy to match the proven harm. The burden remains on Nurul to establish the basis for relief. Submissions of the parties 5. Nurul says she bought the tables for RM400 and left them with Lim because she planned to collect them later. She says the first message, “You can have the tables,” was followed minutes later by a message saying she would collect them when she had room, and Lim replied, “OK, no rush.” She argues that the exchange as a whole describes temporary safekeeping, not a gift. She acknowledges that she has no separate printout of the later messages and that this part of her account is not independently verified. 6. Lim says the first message was an explicit gift. He says he understood it that way and did not agree to store the tables for Nurul. He argues that any later collection message would have been a one-sided attempt to change a gift already made, and that his reply could have been courteous rather than an agreement to return the tables. Evidence and findings 7. The receipt in Nurul’s name records two folding tables for RM400. Lim accepts that Nurul purchased them. The receipt therefore establishes the purchase and the recorded price. It does not establish what the parties later agreed about possession, whether the tables were given away, their present value, or whether they can be returned. 8. The presented excerpt records Nurul’s message, “You can have the tables.” It is direct evidence of those words and is clear enough to support Lim’s understanding that Nurul was giving him the tables. The excerpt is expressly incomplete: it omits the messages said to have followed. It therefore does not prove that no later collection message or reply existed. 9. Nurul has consistently described the later exchange and has candidly acknowledged that she cannot provide a separate printout. Her account is relevant and is not rejected simply because it is unverified. But it remains her account, not an independently confirmed message record. Lim disputes that there was an agreement to store the tables and explains his understanding of the first message. His explanation is also relevant, but does not independently establish the full exchange. Reasons 10. The court accepts that Nurul bought the tables. That fact is not enough to decide the possession dispute. Rule 29 asks which party has the better right to possess or control them, and the court must consider the later communication as well as the purchase. 11. The first message is important because its ordinary wording, “You can have the tables,” supports a gift. Nurul’s account of the later messages would materially change how the exchange is understood: a stated plan to collect the tables, followed by “OK, no rush,” could support temporary safekeeping. But the later messages are not shown in a written record, and their existence and meaning are disputed. The court has considered Nurul’s account rather than treating the missing printout as proof against her; nevertheless, the account does not outweigh the clear first message sufficiently to establish, on this record, that she retained the better right to possession. 12. Lim’s argument that a later message could not alter a completed gift is not established as a general rule by the supplied laws, and the court does not rely on such a rule. The decisive point is narrower: Nurul bears the burden of proving her right to the requested relief, and the available evidence leaves the alleged safekeeping arrangement uncertain. The first message supports Lim’s interpretation, while the later exchange that could support Nurul’s interpretation is unverified. Applying Rule 1 and Rule 29, the ownership-and-gift issue is not proven in Nurul’s favor. 13. The remedy issue follows from that finding. Because Nurul has not established the better right to possess the tables, the court cannot order their return. The receipt’s RM400 figure is a purchase price, not proof that the tables cannot be returned or that RM400 is their present value. Nurul’s request for RM400 is conditional on the tables being unavailable, and the record does not establish that condition. Rule 6 does not permit either remedy without a sufficient factual basis. Final order 14. Judgment is entered for the defendant, Lim Wei Jian. Nurul Aina Rahman’s claim for return of the two folding tables is denied. Her alternative claim for RM400 is also denied. No payment is ordered by either party under this judgment. The result reflects the failure to prove the better right to possession on the available record; it does not undo the finding that Nurul purchased the tables for RM400.