Original in-game verdict

Background 1. Clara Benavent seeks repayment of €120, the assembly portion of a €300 payment to Rubén Salcedo. The record shows that the €180 delivery was completed and that assembly was not completed. Clara asks for the assembly payment back; she does not seek repayment of the delivery charge. Rubén asks the court to deny or reduce the refund, relying on the agreed clear-work-area condition and his account that a desk was in the work area when he arrived. 2. The parties have both made final submissions. The record contains the accepted quote and payment acknowledgment, and the next-day messages about a proposed return visit. The parties' accounts of the first visit conflict. No further obtainable proof is identified, and the court decides the claim on the record presented. Issues for determination 3. The issues are: what the agreement required; whether Clara proved that the condition for assembly was met or excused, or that Rubén was otherwise responsible for not completing the work; and whether Clara proved entitlement to the €120 refund or another amount. Under Rule 1, Clara, as the party seeking relief, must support her claim with facts or evidence. The court applies the supplied contract rules, including Rules 21, 22, 23, and 6. Submissions of the parties 4. Clara says she paid €300, including €120 for assembly, and that she offered to move the desk when Rubén said it obstructed his work. She says Rubén left without hearing or accepting that offer. She relies on the next-day messages: after she moved the desk, she asked Rubén to finish the paid assembly, and he said he could return for an additional €45. Clara declined and requested the assembly payment back. Her final request remains limited to €120. 5. Rubén says the accepted agreement required a clear working area and that he personally saw the desk in the work area. He says he did not hear Clara offer to move it. He does not claim that the desk could not have been moved, and he accepts that the agreement did not state a failed-visit or return-visit fee. He argues that the desk's presence bears on whether the full assembly payment should be repaid, while acknowledging that the later messages do not establish what happened during the first visit. Evidence and findings 6. The accepted quote and payment acknowledgment are a reliable, mutually accepted written record. They establish the separate prices of €180 for delivery and €120 for assembly, the €300 payment, and the clear-work-area condition. They do not state a fee for a failed visit or a return visit. The court therefore finds the agreement's price and condition established. (exhibit-2-e1; exhibit-3-e1; exhibit-4-e1.) 7. The next-day messages are presented as a retrievable original exchange. They show Clara saying the desk was out and asking Rubén to finish the assembly already paid for; Rubén proposed returning for €45; Clara declined and requested the €120 back. These messages support that assembly remained unfinished and that Rubén proposed an additional charge. They do not prove what was said or done at the first visit. The same exchange appears in several exhibits, but repetition of one exchange does not make it independent corroboration. (exhibit-1-e3; exhibit-2-e3.) 8. Rubén's account that he saw a desk in the work area is firsthand testimony, not a written record of the visit. Clara's account that she offered to move it is also an attributed account, and is disputed. Rubén says he did not hear the offer. The record does not establish that the desk could not be moved, that Clara refused to move it, or that Rubén refused a workable offer. Nor does it establish that the clear-area condition had been met when he arrived. The court cannot resolve that conflict by treating either party's assertion as conclusive. (statement-1; statement-2; statement-4; statement-6.) Reasons 9. Under Rule 21, the written agreement controls the starting point. It required a clear work area before assembly and set the assembly price at €120. Rule 23 requires the court to consider whether that condition occurred or was excused. The evidence establishes that a desk was in the work area, but does not establish the full exchange about moving it or whether the condition was satisfied or excused. Because Clara seeks repayment, she bears the burden of proving facts supporting that remedy. On this record, she has not proved that Rubén breached the agreement by failing to assemble the wardrobe on the first visit. 10. That finding does not establish that Rubén was entitled to abandon the work, or that Clara acted unreasonably. It reflects the limits of the evidence. Rubén's account supports his explanation that the desk was present, but does not prove that assembly could not proceed. Clara's account supports her position that she offered to clear the area, but the offer is disputed and is not confirmed by the later messages. The court therefore finds the first-visit issue not proven by Clara, rather than finding that either account is conclusively true. 11. The €45 return charge was not included in the agreement. Under Rule 21, the court cannot treat it as an agreed contractual fee. The messages show Rubén proposed it and Clara declined; they do not show that Clara accepted it or that she paid it. This weighs against any argument that Rubén may keep or collect €45 as a contractually agreed charge. But Clara's claim is for a €120 refund, not repayment of a paid €45 fee. The absence of an agreed return fee does not, by itself, prove that Clara is entitled to the assembly payment. 12. Rule 22 requires a material failure before a major remedy is justified, and Rule 6 requires the remedy to match the proven harm. The record establishes that the paid assembly remained unfinished, but leaves unresolved why the first visit ended and does not establish the value of any work performed or a separate amount of loss. Clara has not proved that Rubén was responsible for the nonperformance, or supplied a basis for calculating a proportionate refund. The court cannot assume that the entire €120 is owed merely because assembly was unfinished, particularly where the agreement made performance conditional on a clear work area and the evidence about that condition is inconclusive. 13. Rule 39 permits consideration of a fair chance to correct a service problem. The messages show Clara asked Rubén to return after moving the desk, and Rubén offered to return for €45. Clara declined that offer. The record does not establish that the offer was accepted, that the parties agreed on a free return, or that the €45 charge was a term of their original deal. This evidence is relevant to the opportunity to complete the work, but it does not resolve the first-visit dispute or establish a refund amount. The court does not fault Clara for declining an undisclosed charge; it simply cannot infer from that refusal alone that Rubén owes the full assembly price. 14. Clara's allegations of a scam or deliberate deception are not established by the evidence. The court need not decide any broader accusation to resolve the contract claim. The written agreement and messages establish the price, condition, unfinished assembly, and proposed return charge; they do not establish intentional deception or a proven breach entitling Clara to repayment. Final order 15. Clara's claim for repayment of €120 is denied because she has not proved entitlement to that remedy on the available record. No repayment of the €180 delivery charge is sought, and none is ordered. The proposed €45 return charge was not an agreed term, but no separate award concerning it is made because the record does not show that Clara paid it or seeks its repayment. No party is ordered to pay the other any amount under this judgment.