Original in-game verdict

Background 1. Colin Mercer seeks $600 from Leah Benton, the unpaid portion of a $1,200 order for 300 menus. The order records a $600 deposit and Friday delivery, and notes a Saturday opening. The menus were delivered on Monday. The question is whether the plaintiff has proved that the remaining balance is owed despite the late delivery. Issues for determination 2. The issues are whether the Friday deadline was changed by agreement and whether the plaintiff has proved that the full $600 balance is owed in light of the Monday delivery and the evidence about the menus’ value. The plaintiff bears the burden of proving the requested relief under Rule 1, the Claim Needs Proof. Submissions of the parties 3. The plaintiff argues that Leah submitted a replacement file on Thursday, was told that using it would move delivery to Monday, and proceeded without objecting. Colin says he completed and delivered all 300 menus and that the $600 deposit was only a partial payment. He asks for the remaining $600. 4. The defendant argues that the accepted order required Friday delivery and did not say that revisions automatically changed the deadline. Leah received the menus on Monday and wrote “Late—balance disputed” on the receipt. The defendant does not claim to know whether or how many menus were later used, and asks the court to deny or reduce the requested balance to what the evidence supports. Evidence and findings 5. The accepted order, presented as exhibit-2-e1, is the strongest record of the original bargain. It states the $1,200 price, 300 menus, Friday delivery, and $600 deposit. It also notes the Saturday opening. It contains no term explaining how revisions affect delivery. The order proves the original deadline and price; it does not prove that the parties later changed either term. 6. The Monday receipt, exhibit-2-e3, records delivery of 300 menus and Leah’s signature under “received,” with the written note “Late—balance disputed.” It proves receipt of the shipment on Monday, but not acceptance as timely performance, settlement of the balance, or later use of the menus. The note is contemporaneous evidence that Leah disputed the balance at delivery. 7. The plaintiff’s account in statement-3 is that Leah was told the replacement file would move delivery to Monday and did not object. That supports the claim that she received notice. But the plaintiff acknowledges there is no express written agreement, and no message or other record of acceptance is presented. The defendant’s submissions, including statement-6, rely on the written order and receipt and do not establish that the menus were unused or worthless. The defendant’s representative expressly says there is no firsthand knowledge or separate evidence of use. Reasons 8. On the deadline issue, Rule 18, Business Records Define the Deal, directs attention to the records of what the parties agreed. The accepted order sets Friday delivery and identifies the Saturday opening. The plaintiff’s account that Leah was warned of a Monday delivery is relevant, but notice alone is not the same as agreement. Her proceeding with the replacement file without an objection may support the plaintiff’s position, but on this record it does not establish that she accepted a change to the written deadline. Under Rule 1, the plaintiff has not proved that the deadline changed. This finding does not decide why the delivery was late or whether the replacement file caused the delay; the record does not establish those matters beyond the plaintiff’s account. 9. On the balance, the order proves that the agreed price was $1,200 and that $600 was paid as a deposit. The plaintiff is therefore correct that the deposit was not described as full payment. The receipt also proves that all 300 menus were delivered, and Leah’s signature confirms receipt. Those facts support the plaintiff’s claim that some amount beyond the deposit might be owed. But they do not, by themselves, prove that the full remaining $600 is owed after delivery missed the stated deadline. 10. Rule 6, The Remedy Should Match the Harm, requires the requested amount to be tied to what the evidence supports. The Friday deadline and Saturday opening make the timing relevant to the value of menus delivered Monday. The receipt’s note shows that Leah raised the timing dispute promptly. Yet the record does not establish how many menus were used, whether any were used at the opening, or what value they retained afterward. The defendant cannot turn that uncertainty into proof that the menus had no value. Equally, the plaintiff cannot rely on delivery alone to establish that the late menus retained the full value represented by the entire $600 balance. The plaintiff bears the burden of proving the amount sought, and has not done so. 11. The court does not find that Leah owes nothing as a matter of fact, nor does it find that the menus were unusable. It finds only that the evidence presented does not establish an amount payable beyond the $600 deposit. The parties’ final submissions do not add proof of agreement to change the deadline or of the menus’ later use or value. No further obtainable proof is identified, and the case is ready for decision on this record. Final order 12. Judgment is entered for the defendant, Leah Benton. Colin Mercer’s claim for the additional $600 is denied. No additional payment is ordered. The $600 deposit already paid remains credited to the $1,200 order; this judgment does not order its return. The denial reflects the plaintiff’s failure to prove the full balance requested on this record, not a finding that the menus had no value or that no lesser balance could ever have been supported.