Original in-game verdict

Background 1. Salome Kapanadze seeks a refund of 120 GEL for an electric kettle purchased from Levan Japaridze’s appliance business. The record shows that Salome reported a leak, Levan adjusted the seal and checked the kettle, and Salome collected it. Salome says the leak continued. Levan does not claim that the repair succeeded and has no further information about the kettle’s condition after collection. He offered to try to obtain a replacement when his supplier had stock, but gave no date. 2. This decision applies only the supplied rules: a party seeking relief must support the request with evidence; reliable records generally carry weight; a fair chance to repair may matter; consumer promises count; and a remedy should match the proven harm. No other legal rule or evidence is assumed. Issues for determination 3. The issues are whether Salome proved the purchase and price; whether she proved that the leak continued after repair; and whether a refund, rather than an uncertain replacement, is a fair remedy. Salome bears the burden of proving the facts supporting her requested relief. Submissions of the parties 4. Salome says she bought the kettle for 120 GEL, collected it after Levan’s repair, and reported that it still leaked. She argues that she should not have to wait an unknown period for a replacement and asks for her money back. 5. Levan says he responded to the complaint by adjusting and checking the seal. He relies on the repair slip and Salome’s signature acknowledging collection, but accepts that neither proves the repair worked. He also accepts that his replacement offer depended on supplier stock and had no date. He asks the court to consider his repair effort when deciding whether to order a full refund. Evidence and findings 6. The two purchase receipts record an electric kettle purchase from Levan’s business for 120 GEL. They are clear records of the purchase and price, and neither party disputes that amount. The purchase and price are established. 7. The repair return slip records that the customer reported leaking, that the seal was adjusted and checked, and that Salome signed acknowledging collection. The slip proves that Levan undertook a repair response and that Salome collected the kettle. It does not record a test result or say that the leak stopped. The signature is expressly an acknowledgment of collection; it does not establish that Salome accepted the repair as successful. 8. The complete message exchange records Salome’s statement, “It still leaks after the repair.” Levan replies that he can try to get another kettle when his supplier has stock and cannot give a date. Salome then asks for her money back. The exchange is a presented record of the parties’ communications. Salome’s statement in it is not an independent test of the kettle, and the record does not conclusively establish the physical condition. But it is a prompt, specific report made in the course of discussing the repair, rather than a later unsupported accusation. Levan confirms he has no information contradicting it and offers no further proof about the result. 9. Considering the message together with the repair slip and Levan’s acknowledgment that he cannot show the repair worked, I find it more likely than not that the leak continued after collection. The repair slip establishes an effort to fix the problem, not a successful cure. The continued defect is established on this record, while recognizing that no independent test was produced. 10. The replacement discussion establishes only a conditional offer to try to obtain another kettle when stock became available. It does not establish that a replacement was ready, that stock would become available by any particular time, or that Levan made a definite promise to deliver one on a set date. Salome’s concern about an indefinite wait is therefore supported by the exchange, though her suggestion that the wait might last a year is not evidence of an actual expected delay. Reasons 11. Under the supplied burden-of-proof rule, Salome must support the facts needed for relief. The receipts satisfy that burden as to purchase and price. As to the continued leak, the message is Salome’s own report and must be weighed accordingly; it is not automatically conclusive merely because it appears in a written exchange. Its timing and specificity support it, however, and Levan does not offer a contrary observation. The repair slip does not resolve the conflict in Levan’s favor because “checked” does not state what the check showed. On balance, Salome has met her burden on this issue. 12. The repair opportunity rule requires consideration of whether Levan had a fair chance to correct the problem. He did receive the kettle and made an adjustment, so his repair effort counts in his favor. But the record supports that the problem remained after that effort. The rule does not make an attempted repair conclusive or require Salome to accept an indefinite further wait. 13. The remedy rule calls for relief proportionate to the proven harm. The price is established at 120 GEL, and the reported defect continued after repair. Levan’s replacement offer was not a ready replacement or a definite, timely solution. The consumer-promises rule also supports taking the actual terms of that offer seriously: it was an attempt to obtain a replacement when stock became available, not a firm delivery commitment. In these circumstances, a refund of the documented price is fair and proportionate. Levan’s repair effort has been considered, but it does not justify denying the refund when the repair did not resolve the reported problem and the alternative had no date. 14. No additional loss or separate monetary amount is supported by the record. The award is limited to the 120 GEL purchase price. The court does not make a finding about any other damage, expenses, or remedy. Final order 15. Judgment is entered for plaintiff Salome Kapanadze and against defendant Levan Japaridze on the refund claim. Levan must pay Salome 120 GEL as a refund of the kettle’s purchase price. 16. Salome’s request for that refund is granted in full. No additional monetary relief is awarded. This order rests on the receipts, repair slip, and replacement discussion in the shared record, and on the finding that the leak more likely than not continued after repair.