District Court rules for bakery in portal payment dispute, but leaves award unspecified

The District Court ruled in favor of Copper Whisk Bakery LLC in its dispute with Alder Finch Digital LLC over a wholesale ordering portal. Presiding judge Mike declared the bakery “not guilty and entitled to payment,” but did not specify an amount or expressly dispose of the developer’s claim for a $12,000 unpaid balance, interest and costs.

The dispute turned on whether keeping the portal running for customer orders meant accepting the work, or merely managing problems while seeking repairs. Copper Whisk sought to defeat or reduce the balance claim and recover $4,200 in claimed correction expenses without double-counting the withheld sum.

The signed judgment contains only the operative sentence. It gives no reasons for the result and makes no findings about the alleged defects, the contractual payment trigger or the scope of the promised work.

Although it uses the phrase “not guilty,” the recorded dispute concerns contractual payment and correction costs, not a criminal charge. The judgment does not explain that wording.

Nor does it say whether the bakery’s entitlement to payment represents all or part of the claimed $4,200. It does not distinguish repairs from additional features on the replacement developer’s bill, or address interest and court costs.

Alder Finch maintained that it completed the portal for an agreed fixed price of $24,000, demonstrated it successfully on September 2 and launched it on September 5. It argued that commercial use triggered payment under the agreement.

In its recorded response, however, Alder Finch acknowledged that messages describing temporary operation qualified that use. It also accepted that the duplicate-order issue needed consideration under the agreed correction period. Its position was that the problem affected only a demonstration account and was promptly corrected.

Copper Whisk denied that the balance was presently due. It said duplicate orders and incorrect customer totals made the portal unsafe without manual checks, and that continued operation was temporary damage control rather than acceptance.

The bakery sought reasonable correction costs, excluding new features. It maintained that tax-exempt pricing fell within the approved wholesale requirements, while acknowledging that split deliveries were discussed late. Alder Finch characterized both as requests outside the agreed scope.

The payment dispute also became a support dispute. Alder Finch said it stopped responding to support requests after the final invoice went unpaid. Copper Whisk said it withheld payment while seeking completion and correction, then hired a replacement developer.

According to the bakery’s account, that developer charged $4,200 to make the system dependable, but the bill also listed new delivery scheduling. That mixed description left a disputed distinction between correcting the original work and buying additional functionality.

The judgment records a result favorable to Copper Whisk, but does not resolve those competing accounts in its reasons or explain the financial consequences. It therefore supplies no stated answer to the central question: when did operating this portal become acceptance, if at all?