Original in-game verdict

Background 1. Ruth Kila asks for a refund of K180 from Jonah Wari for a kettle she bought from him. She says it failed soon after purchase and asks for the refund when she returns the kettle. Jonah opposes the request, saying he demonstrated the kettle before sale and that the available evidence does not show it was defective when sold. 2. The hearing record includes the receipt, a purchase-day photograph, a message Jonah sent after testing the returned kettle, the parties’ submissions, and client accounts relayed by counsel. The client accounts are attributed statements, not independently verified documents or admitted witness testimony. The parties have both had an opportunity to make final submissions, and neither identifies further obtainable proof. Issues for determination 3. The issues are whether Ruth bought the kettle for K180 and returned it, and whether she proved a basis for a refund because the kettle failed to meet a quality promise or was defective when sold. Under Rule 1, the party seeking relief must support the request with evidence. Rule 37 requires a seller to honor specific promises about quality. Rule 2 gives weight to reliable records, and Rule 6 requires a remedy to match the proven harm. Submissions of the parties 4. Ruth relies on the receipt for the price and return date. She says the kettle failed at home and emphasizes Jonah’s message after his shop test: “It warmed a little here, then stopped.” She argues that the shop-side failure shows the problem was not limited to her home. She accepts that she cannot identify a specific quality promise or prove the cause, and asks for K180 upon returning the kettle. 5. Jonah says he demonstrated a working kettle before sale and relies on a photograph showing its indicator light illuminated. He argues that the six-day delay before return and uncertainty about what happened in between make a full refund unjustified. His client account also says he cannot identify the cause and that the shop test was inconclusive. The photograph and message are the principal documentary evidence bearing on the kettle’s operation. Evidence and findings 6. The receipt records a new electric kettle sold to Ruth for K180. It also records the return date, six days after purchase, which Jonah agrees was the return date. The purchase and return are established. The receipt does not describe the kettle’s condition or contain a quality promise. 7. The purchase-day photograph shows the kettle’s indicator light illuminated. Ruth accepts that Jonah switched it on before the sale. The photograph does not show water temperature or a complete heating cycle, so it supports that the kettle was switched on but does not establish that it heated fully or operated reliably. 8. Jonah’s return-day message is a contemporaneous written account of what he observed during his shop test: the kettle warmed a little and then stopped. It is evidence of a problem during that test and is consistent with Ruth’s account that the problem was not confined to her home. But Jonah’s suggestion that it could be a connection issue is expressly uncertain, and the thread contains no later test result. The message does not establish the cause or when the problem began. 9. Ruth expressly says she has no further independent proof of a specific quality promise or of the cause. Jonah’s client account says he saw the kettle heat normally before sale, but that account is not independently verified. The photograph provides some support for his account that he switched it on, but not for a full heating cycle. The record therefore does not establish either a successful full test before sale or a defect existing at the time of sale. Reasons 10. The first issue is established. The receipt and the parties’ agreement prove a K180 sale and a return six days later. That finding alone does not establish a right to a refund: Ruth must also prove a basis for that remedy. 11. On the quality issue, Ruth’s strongest evidence is Jonah’s own contemporaneous message. It deserves weight because it records a direct shop-side observation and supports that the kettle stopped during the test. It makes the alleged problem more than an uncorroborated account of what happened at Ruth’s home. But it does not show whether the kettle was defective when sold, whether the problem arose later, or what caused it. The six-day interval is part of the timeline, but there is no evidence that Ruth misused the kettle, and I do not find that she did. 12. Rule 37 concerns specific promises about quality. Ruth has candidly said she cannot identify a specific promise, and the receipt contains none. The evidence that the kettle stopped during Jonah’s later test is relevant to whether it worked properly, but, without proof connecting that later failure to its condition at sale or to a specific quality promise, it does not establish the required basis for a refund on this record. The photo does not fill that gap: an illuminated indicator is not proof of a full heating cycle. Jonah’s assertion that he saw it heat normally is also not independently verified, so I do not treat that assertion as conclusive. 13. Rule 1 places the burden of proving the claim on Ruth. The evidence leaves a real possibility that the kettle had a problem, but possibility is not enough to establish that Jonah failed to honor a quality promise or that the kettle was defective when sold. The uncertainty is not resolved by assigning Jonah a burden to prove the cause; it remains Ruth’s burden to establish her entitlement to the requested refund. Rule 6 does not change that result: a K180 refund is limited to the purchase price, but a proportionate remedy still requires a proven basis for relief. Final order 14. The purchase and return issue is established. The issue whether the kettle failed to meet a quality promise or was defective when sold is not proven. Ruth’s claim for a K180 refund is denied. Jonah is not ordered to pay Ruth, and Ruth is not ordered to pay Jonah. No other relief is granted. This decision reflects the limits of the available evidence and does not find that the kettle was working reliably when sold or that Ruth caused the later problem.