Original in-game verdict

Background 1. Sujata Karki seeks NPR 8,000 from Prabin Adhikari for 200 menus. She says the agreed price was NPR 20,000 and that Prabin paid only NPR 12,000. Prabin acknowledges the transfer but says the menus arrived late and that the parties discussed a reduced payment. He asks the court to deny or reduce the claim. 2. The record includes a mobile-banking confirmation showing a transfer of NPR 12,000 from Prabin to Sujata. Its payment note reads, “Menus late—full payment as discussed.” Sujata disputes the note’s description. The same transfer confirmation appears more than once in the record; those repeated copies do not provide independent corroboration. Issues for determination 3. The first issue is whether Sujata proved an agreed price of NPR 20,000 and an unpaid balance of NPR 8,000. Sujata bears the burden of proving the facts supporting her request for payment. 4. The second issue is whether Prabin proved that Sujata agreed to reduce the price because of late delivery. Prabin bears the burden on that asserted reduction. The supplied rules direct the court to consider the parties’ records and the reliability of their accounts, and to consider whether an important problem was raised fairly and promptly. Submissions of the parties 5. Sujata’s submissions state that the price was NPR 20,000 and that Prabin did not pay the remaining NPR 8,000. In her final statement, she repeats that both parties agreed on NPR 20,000 and describes the withholding as theft. That accusation is an argument, not proof of the price or of an unpaid balance. When asked whether further proof was available, she answered, “I don't know.” 6. Prabin says he paid NPR 12,000 and raised the late-delivery issue at the time of payment. He acknowledges that his payment note is his own description, not proof that Sujata agreed to a reduction. He also says the record does not contain the message in which he claims to have set a noon deadline or Sujata’s alleged confirmation. He confirms that no other proof of agreement to a reduction is available. Evidence and findings 7. The transfer confirmation is reliable evidence that Prabin transferred NPR 12,000 to Sujata, and Sujata acknowledges receipt. It also shows that Prabin promptly recorded his position that the menus were late and the payment was full payment as discussed. The note is relevant to notice of his position, but it is not a jointly accepted record and does not establish the terms of the original deal or Sujata’s agreement to a reduction. 8. Sujata’s account that the price was NPR 20,000 is direct evidence of what she says the parties agreed. But the record contains no invoice, message, witness account, or other independent support for that price. Her account is not contradicted by a proven alternative price, but the absence of a proven alternative does not itself establish her figure. The NPR 12,000 transfer proves payment, not the total price. 9. Prabin’s account of a late-delivery discussion is likewise not independently confirmed. The payment note supports that he asserted a late-delivery concern when paying. It does not show that Sujata accepted a discount. The claimed noon deadline and Sujata’s alleged response are not in evidence. The court therefore does not find that a reduced price was agreed. Reasons 10. Under the supplied burden-of-proof rule, the party seeking relief must point to facts, records, or testimony supporting the request. The business-records rule recognizes that invoices, messages, and similar records can establish what was agreed. Here, Sujata has given a consistent account of a NPR 20,000 price, but no separate record or corroboration supports it. The transfer record cannot fill that gap because it records only the amount paid and Prabin’s own payment description. 11. The court has considered Sujata’s account as evidence, not dismissed it merely because it is not written. However, on this record, it is not enough to establish the total price and resulting NPR 8,000 balance to the required standard. The uncertainty falls on Sujata because she bears the burden on her claim. The balance is therefore not proven. 12. Prabin’s proposed reduction also fails on its own evidentiary footing. His note shows timely notice that he considered the menus late and the payment complete. Under the supplied fair-notice rule, raising a concern promptly matters. But notice of one party’s position is different from agreement by both parties. Prabin admits he cannot prove Sujata accepted a reduction or that the asserted noon deadline was binding. The court therefore finds the reduction unproven. This finding does not establish Sujata’s claimed original price; the two burdens remain distinct. 13. Because Sujata has not proven the amount she seeks, her claim for NPR 8,000 must be denied. This is not a finding that Prabin proved a discount, nor a finding that the parties agreed the price was NPR 12,000. It is a decision that the available record does not establish Sujata’s claimed balance. No other monetary remedy is supported by the record. Final order 14. Sujata Karki’s claim for NPR 8,000 against Prabin Adhikari is denied. No payment is ordered, and no amount is awarded. The court finds that Prabin paid NPR 12,000, but does not find that the parties agreed to a reduced price. The claim is denied because Sujata did not prove the agreed total price and unpaid balance. No additional relief is granted.