Original in-game verdict

Background 1. Lerato Maseko asks for a refund of R650 paid for a kettle purchased from Daniel Jacobs’s business. She says the kettle was faulty and that she asked for a refund. Daniel offered a replacement. The parties’ final submissions have been considered together with the earlier submissions, the receipt, the WhatsApp exchange, and the client accounts relayed by counsel. 2. The court applies only the supplied hearing rules. The party seeking relief must support it with specific facts, records, or testimony. Reliable records generally carry weight, but the court must also assess what each record actually proves. A consumer promise about quality matters, a chance to address a product problem may be relevant, and the remedy should match the proven harm. Issues for determination 3. The first issue is whether Lerato proved that the kettle was faulty. The burden is on Lerato. The second is whether she proved that a refund, rather than a replacement, is the appropriate relief. The burden on that claim is also on Lerato. Submissions of the parties 4. Lerato’s side says she paid R650 for a kettle that switched off before the water boiled. It relies on the receipt and her account that she personally saw the failure. It says she returned to the shop, asked for a refund, considered Daniel’s replacement offer, then rejected it and again asked for her money back. Lerato seeks the full R650 and does not seek to be forced to accept a replacement. 5. Daniel says he offered a replacement as a practical way to address the complaint. He initially understood Lerato’s “I will think about it” as acceptance, but acknowledges that the words do not clearly say yes. He did not test the kettle, has no test report, and cannot establish when he received or read Lerato’s later refund request. He asks the court to deny or reduce the refund, while accepting that his evidence does not independently prove the kettle worked or that Lerato accepted a replacement. Evidence and findings 6. The receipt, presented as exhibit-3-e1, establishes that Lerato bought a kettle for R650. It does not establish the kettle’s condition. The initial WhatsApp exchange, presented as exhibit-2-e2 and repeated in the record, establishes that Daniel offered a replacement and Lerato replied, “I will think about it.” The message is relevant and its words are not disputed. It does not record a clear acceptance or a later refund request. 7. The fault evidence is Lerato’s attributed client account in exhibit-3-client-statement:3 and exhibit-5-client-statement:17. She says the kettle switched off before the water boiled and that she was present when it happened. These are saved answers relayed by counsel, not an independently verified document or admitted witness testimony. They therefore carry less assurance than a test report or direct testimony in court. Nevertheless, they are specific and consistent with the complaint described in the submissions. Daniel’s statement-4 confirms that he did not test the kettle and cannot confirm its condition from personal observation. His evidence does not contradict the reported failure. 8. On the return and remedy, exhibit-3-client-statement:5 says Lerato asked for a refund when she returned the kettle, later considered the replacement, and the next day rejected it and asked for a refund. She cannot recall exact dates. Exhibit-3-client-statement:9 also records her account that she had asked for a refund and Daniel offered a replacement. These are attributed accounts, not independent records. Daniel’s statement-6 confirms that he has no record establishing when the later request reached him and cannot use a timestamp to dispute her account. The court does not treat the missing timestamp as proof of a particular date; it weighs the account alongside Daniel’s inability to contradict it. Reasons 9. On the fault issue, Lerato has met her burden. Her account is not independently corroborated, and the receipt proves only purchase and price. But the account is a direct, concrete description of what she says she observed, and it is consistent across the saved answers and submissions. Daniel offers no contrary observation, test, or report. His replacement offer is consistent with an effort to resolve a complaint, but it does not prove the kettle was faulty by itself; nor does it prove that it was working. Considering the evidence as a whole under the burden-of-proof and reliable-records rules, the specific account is sufficient here to establish the fault. The court does not rely on Lerato’s broader suggestion that Daniel’s offer shows wrongdoing or that other customers may have had similar experiences; no evidence supports those suggestions. 10. On the remedy, the receipt establishes the amount paid, and the fault finding establishes the product problem underlying the request. The WhatsApp message does not show that Lerato accepted a replacement. Daniel’s own final submission accepts that the message does not prove acceptance. The attributed account that she later rejected the offer and asked for a refund is not supported by a timestamped message, and the exact timing remains uncertain. However, Daniel cannot establish when he received that request and offers no evidence contradicting the account. The court accepts the account on balance, while recognizing its limits. 11. The replacement offer matters under the supplied rule that a chance to address a product problem can matter. It shows Daniel proposed a practical response. But the record does not establish that Lerato agreed to that response, that a replacement was delivered, or that a refund was made. The supplied rules do not make an unaccepted offer equivalent to repayment. The proportional-remedy rule supports limiting relief to the proven purchase price, rather than awarding an additional or speculative amount. The full R650 is supported by the receipt and is the amount sought. Final order 12. Judgment is entered for the plaintiff, Lerato Maseko, against the defendant, Daniel Jacobs. Daniel must pay Lerato R650 (six hundred and fifty rand) as a refund of the kettle purchase price. 13. No additional amount is awarded. The record does not establish any further loss or a basis for additional relief. The replacement offer is not treated as an accepted replacement or as payment of the refund. This order resolves the claim on the evidence presented and does not make findings about other customers or any broader business practice.