Original in-game verdict

Background 1. Elisa Neri asks the court to order Davide Bellini to pay €90 as his half of an April electricity bill. Elisa says the parties agreed to divide the bill equally. Davide disputes that the record proves an unconditional agreement to share the entire bill. He says he understood that unusual extra electricity use after he moved out would not be shared, but acknowledges that he has no separate proof of that condition. 2. The hearing record includes repeated submissions by both parties and a screenshot of Davide’s 12 April message stating that he had taken his things and would not stay at the flat from that night. The screenshot does not show a discussion about the bill. No bill, written agreement, or message recording the bill terms has been presented. The parties have had repeated opportunities to identify further proof, and none has been identified. The court therefore decides the claim on the available record. Issues for determination 3. The issues are whether Elisa has proved that the parties agreed to share the April bill, and whether she has proved that €90 is Davide’s share. Under Rule 1, the party seeking relief must point to facts, records, or testimony supporting the request. Rule 2 gives greater weight to reliable records than to unsupported accounts. Rule 14 recognizes that relationship conflict does not erase shared obligations, but it does not establish that a particular obligation was agreed. Rule 6 requires a remedy to match the harm proved. Submissions of the parties 4. Elisa says the agreement was to pay half of the April bill and that Davide’s departure did not cancel it. She also argues that Davide has not proved his claim that the arrangement excluded unusual use after he moved out. Her requested amount is €90, described as half of a €180 bill. 5. Davide says moving out did not automatically end an April commitment. He maintains, however, that the agreement had a limit concerning unusual extra electricity use after 12 April. He admits that he has no independent proof of that condition. He asks the court to deny the request or limit any contribution to what the evidence supports. He also points out that neither the agreement nor the bill details are in the record. Evidence and findings 6. Elisa’s statements in statements 1, 3, and 7 consistently describe an equal-sharing agreement. That consistency is relevant, but the statements remain her account and do not independently verify the agreement’s terms. Her statement that she has proof of a signed oral agreement does not itself produce or identify a record of that agreement. The court does not treat the assertion as proof of a document or signature. 7. Davide’s screenshot, presented as exhibits 2, 4, 6, 8, and 10, supports the limited finding that he sent a message saying he would stop staying at the flat on 12 April. The repeated presentations are the same message, not separate corroborating evidence. The screenshot says nothing about the bill agreement, the amount, or the alleged unusual-use condition. It does not establish that moving out ended an April obligation. 8. Davide’s account of a condition limiting his responsibility after moving out is also unsupported by a separate record. His candid acknowledgment in statements 6, 8, and 10 makes clear that the condition remains his account, not a proven term. The court does not find that the condition was agreed. But the failure to prove Davide’s proposed condition does not establish Elisa’s asserted terms; Elisa retains the burden of proving her claim. 9. The record contains references to a €180 bill and a requested €90 half, but no bill is presented to verify the total, the period covered, or the amount attributable to the parties’ arrangement. The court finds that the parties have described those figures, not that the underlying bill or the agreed calculation has been established. Reasons 10. On the first issue, Elisa has not proved the agreement and its terms. Her account is consistent, and Davide does not rely on the move-out date as an automatic cancellation. Those points lend some support to the possibility of a shared April responsibility. But the supplied rules require proof of the obligation being enforced. The only presented record concerns when Davide stopped staying at the flat; it does not record the agreement. The court cannot resolve the competing accounts by treating either party’s unsupported description as established. 11. Davide’s unsupported condition does not shift the burden to him to disprove Elisa’s claim. Rather, the court considers the condition only as a disputed account that remains unproven. Even without accepting that condition, Elisa must still establish that the parties agreed to split the whole bill. She has not done so on this record. Rule 14 supports enforcing shared obligations when established, but it does not supply missing proof of what the parties undertook. 12. On the second issue, Elisa has also not proved that €90 is the proper share. The amount depends on a verified bill total and a proven basis for dividing it equally. Neither is established by a bill or other reliable record. Under Rules 1 and 6, the court cannot award a figure merely because it is presented as half of a stated total. 13. The court recognizes that the result does not establish that Davide had no April responsibility, nor does it establish that his proposed unusual-use limit was part of the agreement. It means only that Elisa, who seeks payment, has not proved the agreement and amount required for the requested order. No further obtainable proof has been identified, so an adjournment would not cure the gaps on this record. Final order 14. Elisa Neri’s claim for €90 is denied. No payment is ordered from Davide Bellini to Elisa Neri. The denial rests on the failure to prove the agreement’s terms and the amount claimed, not on a finding that Davide’s unusual-use condition was agreed or that moving out ended any April obligation. No other relief is established or awarded.