Original in-game verdict

Background 1. Leah Bennett seeks return of $400 paid for a bookshelf from Owen Mercer. The signed order states that the bookshelf cost $400 and was to be delivered by June 8. Owen asks that Leah accept delivery instead of receiving a refund. The parties have both had an opportunity to address the evidence and the requested relief. Issues for determination 2. The issues are whether the order and June 8 delivery date are established; whether Leah agreed to change that date; and whether the evidence supports returning the $400. The plaintiff bears the burden of proving the basis for her requested relief. The defendant bears the burden of proving the asserted later agreement on which he relies. 3. The supplied Wisconsin sales-contract rule recognizes that a contract may be shown by agreement and conduct. The supplied modification rule provides that an agreed change may be binding. The supplied waiver rule also makes an attempted change potentially relevant as a waiver. These rules require evidence of agreement or conduct supporting the claimed change; a party’s private understanding alone does not establish the other party’s agreement. Submissions of the parties 4. Leah says the signed order set June 8, she paid $400, and Owen did not deliver by that date. She argues that her reply to Owen’s request for June 12—“Okay, thanks for letting me know. I need to check”—did not accept a new date. She seeks the $400 back rather than a later delivery. 5. Owen says he understood Leah’s reply as permission to deliver later, remains willing to deliver the finished bookshelf, and prefers delivery to a refund. He also presented a payment-app record showing Leah sent him $400 for the bookshelf. His position is that the payment and exchange support his requested outcome. Evidence and findings 6. The signed order is presented as a signed document listing the bookshelf, $400 price, and June 8 delivery date. It is direct evidence of those terms. Owen’s attributed client account says he made the bookshelf, asked on June 7 to bring it June 12, and did not deliver on June 8. Although that account is relayed through counsel rather than admitted testimony, it is consistent with the order and is an acknowledgment against Owen’s position on timely delivery. I find the order and missed June 8 delivery established. 7. The complete dated message exchange is presented by both parties. Owen asked, “Running late. Can I bring it June 12?” Leah replied, “Okay, thanks for letting me know. I need to check.” The reply can be read in more than one way, but its final words indicate that Leah had not yet completed checking. Leah’s account says she did not later agree or act as if she accepted June 12. Owen’s attributed account says he understood the reply as allowing the delay, while also acknowledging he was not sure that was what Leah meant. His submission that silence is acceptance does not establish that Leah agreed: the exchange contains a response, and the response does not clearly confirm the proposed date. I find that Owen has not proved a change or waiver. 8. The payment-app exhibit states that Leah sent Owen $400 for the bookshelf. It is presented by both sides and is consistent with the price in the signed order. It directly supports payment. The exhibit does not prove delivery or a later agreement. No presented evidence establishes that the bookshelf was delivered. Owen’s attributed account says he remains willing to deliver, but willingness is not proof that delivery occurred. Nor does the record establish that Leah accepted a later delivery. Reasons 9. The plaintiff has proved the underlying transaction and the missed deadline through the signed order and Owen’s acknowledgment. The payment exhibit resolves the earlier uncertainty about whether the $400 was actually transferred. The evidence therefore supports Leah’s claim that she paid for the bookshelf and did not receive delivery by the agreed date. 10. The defendant has not proved that the June 8 date was changed. The modification rule applies when the parties agree to a change. The message exchange shows a request and an answer that remains conditional or unresolved, not clear agreement. Owen’s account is relevant evidence of what he understood, but it cannot by itself prove Leah’s intent. The waiver rule does not change the result: the record shows no later conduct by Leah establishing that she gave up the June 8 term. The defendant’s argument that silence is acceptance is not persuasive on this record, particularly because Leah did respond and said she needed to check. 11. The refund request is supported by the combined evidence of payment, the agreed delivery date, and non-delivery by that date, with no proven later agreement or delivery. Owen’s willingness to deliver is relevant to his preferred remedy, but it does not establish that Leah must accept a later performance. The record does not provide a basis to order delivery instead of the requested refund. The court awards the $400 paid, and no additional amount is supported by the record. Final order 12. Judgment is entered for plaintiff Leah Bennett and against defendant Owen Mercer. Owen Mercer must pay Leah Bennett $400 in the currency of the payment record. Leah’s request for return of the $400 is granted. Owen’s request that Leah accept later delivery instead of a refund is denied. No additional monetary relief is awarded.