Original in-game verdict

Background 1. Ratih Wulandari asks for the return of an aluminium ladder or, if it cannot be returned, Rp1,000,000. Deni Permana disputes that Ratih has shown a right to recover it. He also argues that the requested money exceeds what the evidence supports and makes no separate claim for damages. 2. The parties’ submissions describe a loan for painting and a later message saying, “Just keep it for now. I don’t need it this week.” The short screenshot of that message was incomplete. During the hearing, Ratih presented a receipt and the surrounding WhatsApp exchange. Both are part of the record considered here. Issues for determination 3. The first issue is whether Ratih has the better right to possess the ladder. Ratih bears the burden of supporting her request with facts or reliable records. The supplied possession rule directs the court to decide which party has the stronger right to control the property. 4. The second issue is what remedy the evidence supports. Ratih must support the requested remedy and its amount. The supplied rules require a remedy to match the proven harm and require proof of value for a property-damage claim. Submissions of the parties 5. Ratih argues that she bought the ladder and lent it to Deni for painting. She says Deni asked to keep it longer, and that “for now” and “this week” describe a temporary arrangement. She relies on the receipt and the surrounding exchange, which includes Deni’s request to return her ladder the following week. Ratih asks for return in good condition or Rp1,000,000 if return is not possible. Her final submission explains that Rp1,000,000 includes the Rp850,000 purchase price and Rp150,000 for transport and effort. 6. Deni says he understood “just keep it” as permission to own the ladder. He accepts that “for now” and “this week” can sound temporary and that the short screenshot does not show the preceding messages. In his final submission, Deni accepts that the receipt shows Ratih paid Rp850,000, but argues that the additional Rp150,000 is unsupported and that the message contains no express return date. He asks the court to consider the uncertainty and does not claim damages himself. Evidence and findings 7. The receipt, exhibit-5-e1, records Ratih’s purchase of one aluminium folding ladder for Rp850,000 three months before the disputed handover. The record says both parties identify it as the ladder in dispute. The receipt is clear evidence of Ratih’s original purchase. It does not, by itself, prove whether she later gave the ladder away. 8. The short screenshot, shown in exhibits exhibit-2-e2, exhibit-4-e2, and exhibit-6-e2, records Ratih saying, “Just keep it for now. I don’t need it this week,” and Deni replying, “Okay, thank you.” It omits the immediately preceding messages. The words “keep it” can support Deni’s interpretation, while “for now” and “this week” suggest temporary permission. The short screenshot alone is ambiguous and is not treated as conclusive. 9. The surrounding exchange, exhibit-5-e3, records Deni asking, “Can I return your ladder next week instead? The painting is not finished.” Ratih’s “Just keep it for now” reply follows immediately. The exchange contains no express statement transferring ownership. This is direct contextual evidence of what the parties were discussing. It strongly supports the conclusion that Deni understood the ladder to be Ratih’s and was asking to extend a loan. Deni’s stated understanding is considered, but it does not overcome the context of his own preceding request. 10. The record does not establish the ladder’s present condition, whether it can be returned, or its current value. The receipt proves the original purchase price, not present value. No evidence supports the additional Rp150,000 for transport and effort. Reasons 11. On the first issue, Ratih has met her burden. The receipt establishes her purchase of the identified ladder, and the surrounding exchange supplies the missing context for the ambiguous short screenshot. Deni’s request to return “your ladder” the following week is inconsistent with his claim that he understood the exchange as permission to own it. Ratih’s reply, read in that context, allowed him to keep the ladder temporarily while painting continued; it did not transfer ownership. Under the supplied burden-of-proof, reliable-records, and possession rules, Ratih has the better right to possess the ladder. This finding is based on the receipt and the full exchange, not merely on Ratih’s allegations or on the absence of proof from Deni. 12. On the second issue, the evidence supports an order to return the ladder. Return directly restores the property to the party with the better right and does not depend on an unproven cash valuation. The record does not establish that the ladder is damaged, that it cannot be returned, or that a monetary substitute is necessary. The court therefore does not order payment of Rp850,000 or Rp1,000,000 in place of return. The receipt’s original price does not establish current value, and the extra Rp150,000 is unsupported. This applies the supplied proportional-remedy and damage-value rules. The order does not make a finding about the ladder’s condition beyond what the record proves. Final order 13. Judgment is entered for Ratih Wulandari on the right to possession. Deni Permana must return the disputed aluminium ladder to Ratih. The request for Rp1,000,000 as an alternative monetary payment is denied on this record because the ladder’s non-return, present value, and the additional Rp150,000 are not proved. No damages are awarded to Deni. No additional monetary award is made to either party.