Original in-game verdict

Background 1. Imran Saeed claims that Nadia Farooq owes him PKR 6,000 for supplied tags. He says the agreed price was PKR 40,000, Nadia paid PKR 10,000 in advance, and he later offered to close the account for PKR 24,000 if she paid that evening. Nadia paid PKR 24,000 two days later. Imran seeks the remaining PKR 6,000, arguing that Nadia did not meet the condition for the discount. 2. Nadia disputes that the discount was clearly conditional on same-evening payment. She relies on a screenshot of Imran’s message: “Send 24,000 and we can close the label account.” She says the message contains no deadline and that the screenshot ends before any follow-up. She asks that the additional PKR 6,000 be denied. Issues for determination 3. The central questions are whether Imran proved that the PKR 24,000 settlement offer required payment that same evening, and, if so, whether he proved that PKR 6,000 remains payable. Under Rule 1, the party seeking relief must support the request with facts, records, or testimony. Rule 18 directs attention to business records when determining what the parties agreed. Rule 23 provides that a condition must actually occur, or be excused, before a duty depending on it arises. Submissions of the parties 4. Imran says he needed to pay a supplier and asked Nadia to transfer the money that evening. He says Nadia responded that she would arrange it, but paid two days later. In his final submission, he argues that the reason for urgency made his intention clear, that the original agreed price was PKR 40,000, and that Nadia should not receive the discount without meeting its condition. He also said he wished to submit the complete WhatsApp conversation, but no complete conversation appears in the record. 5. Nadia accepts that Imran says he asked for payment that evening, but argues that a request and an explanation of urgency do not, by themselves, establish a clear condition that she accepted. She points to the screenshot’s wording and its missing follow-up. Nadia says no further message evidence is available and asks the court to deny the additional amount. Evidence and findings 6. The screenshot is a presented exhibit, not a complete conversation. It shows a message attributed to Imran at 6:12 p.m. on 8 June 2026 offering to close the label account for PKR 24,000. The image ends immediately below that message. Its wording supports the existence of the offer, but it does not state a payment deadline. Because it is cropped, it also cannot prove that no later message clarified the offer. The screenshot is relevant and has some weight as a contemporaneous written record, but its limited scope prevents it from resolving what followed. 7. Imran’s submissions provide an attributed account that he asked for payment that evening and explained his supplier need. That account is relevant, and Nadia has not denied that he says this. But the submissions are not the complete message record or admitted witness testimony. They do not establish what exact words were used to make the deadline a condition, or that Nadia understood and accepted such a condition. Imran’s statement that he could provide the full conversation does not itself put that conversation in evidence. 8. The parties’ accounts support that the supply price was PKR 40,000, that Nadia paid PKR 10,000 in advance, and that she later paid PKR 24,000. The record does not establish a separate unpaid balance apart from the claimed PKR 6,000 tied to the disputed discount condition. Reasons 9. On the first issue, Imran bears the burden of proving that the discount depended on same-evening payment. His explanation of why he wanted prompt payment makes his account understandable, but a reason for urgency is not proof that the deadline was made a condition of the offer and accepted by Nadia. The screenshot’s express wording contains no deadline. Its crop leaves open the possibility of a follow-up, but an incomplete record does not establish what that follow-up said. The court cannot fill that gap by assuming either that a condition was added or that it was not. 10. Rule 2 gives written records weight, but the screenshot proves only what it displays. Rule 18 makes the business record relevant to the deal; here, the displayed message supports an offer to close for PKR 24,000, while the missing portion leaves the alleged condition unresolved. Rule 23 does not assist Imran unless the condition itself is first shown to have been part of the agreement. The burden remains with Imran under Rule 1, and the uncertainty on this point therefore means the condition is not proven. 11. On the second issue, Imran’s claim to PKR 6,000 depends on showing that Nadia’s payment did not qualify for the offered settlement because she missed an agreed deadline. Since that deadline condition is not proven, the court cannot find that the later PKR 24,000 payment left a further PKR 6,000 due. This is not a finding that no deadline was ever discussed; it is a finding that the available record does not prove the condition required for the requested relief. Rule 6 also requires the remedy to match a proven obligation, and no additional amount is established here. Final order 12. Judgment is entered for Nadia Farooq on Imran Saeed’s claim for PKR 6,000. The claim is denied, and Nadia is not ordered to pay Imran any additional amount on this record. No other monetary relief is awarded. This order resolves only the claim presented and does not make a broader finding about any obligation beyond the disputed PKR 6,000.