Original in-game verdict

Background 1. Élise Perrin seeks a €240 partial refund from Mathieu Delmas after paying €480 for cabinet work. She says the accepted quote covered preparation and repainting of the cabinet, including its doors, and that the doors were returned unpainted. Mathieu disputes that the doors were included and also challenges the amount requested. 2. The record contains the accepted quote, presented as exhibits 3, 5, 7, and 9. Each describes the work as “Preparation and repainting of cabinet, €480 total,” with Élise’s acceptance and no express exclusion of the doors. The repeated exhibits are copies of the same described quote, not separate corroborating agreements. The parties’ submissions are arguments and attributed accounts; they are not independent documents or witness testimony. Issues for determination 3. The first issue is whether the agreed work included painting the cabinet doors and, if so, whether they were left unpainted. Élise bears the burden of showing the facts supporting her claim. The relevant supplied rules are Rule 21, Contract Terms Control First; Rule 37, Consumer Promises Count; Rule 1, The Claim Needs Proof; and Rule 2, Reliable Records Beat Vague Stories. 4. The second issue is whether €240 is a fair and supported refund for the unfinished work. Élise bears the burden on that requested remedy under Rule 6, The Remedy Should Match the Harm, and Rule 1. Submissions of the parties 5. Élise argues that “cabinet” includes its doors and that the accepted quote contains no body-only limitation. She says the doors were not painted. She requests half the total price, while acknowledging that the quote does not separately price the doors and that she has no itemized calculation showing they represent half the work. 6. Mathieu argues that he understood the work to be narrower. His submissions variously refer to his expertise not including carpentry, a warning that he could not do the doors, the doors not being original, and Élise having said she planned to replace them. He also argues that the doors were a small part of the work and that the requested refund is unsupported. He provides no written exclusion or other record supporting those accounts. Evidence and findings 7. The accepted quote is the strongest record of the agreed scope. It says “repainting of cabinet,” not “cabinet body only,” and does not exclude the doors. The wording is not perfectly detailed, but its ordinary breadth supports Élise’s interpretation. The receipt wording described in Mathieu’s submission does not establish that Élise accepted a change to the original scope; no such change is documented in the record. 8. Élise’s account that the doors were returned unpainted is direct and consistent across her submissions. There is no photograph or other independent confirmation, so the account is not independently corroborated. But the record contains no contrary observation either. Mathieu’s explanations do not establish that the doors were excluded: they are unsupported, and the stated reasons vary. His assertion that Élise was pleased with the work and paid in full does not prove that the doors were painted or that she agreed to a narrower scope. Payment alone does not resolve the dispute. 9. I find, on the available record, that the quote included painting the cabinet doors and that they were left unpainted. This finding establishes incomplete performance of the described work. It does not establish the value of that unfinished portion. 10. On value, Élise expressly acknowledges that the quote gives no separate price for the doors and that she has no calculation showing they represent half the work. Her request for €240 is evidence of the relief she seeks, not proof that this amount matches the unfinished work. Mathieu’s assertion that the doors were a tiny fraction is also unsupported; it does not supply a reliable alternative valuation. Reasons 11. Rule 21 directs the court to start with the agreement’s words. The accepted quote’s broad description, without an exclusion, is more persuasive than Mathieu’s unsupported after-the-fact accounts of a narrower understanding. Rule 37 requires a service provider to honor specific promises about the work. Because the doors were included and left unpainted, Élise has established that part of the promised work was not completed. 12. That finding does not automatically entitle Élise to the particular refund she requests. Rule 6 requires the remedy to match the proven harm, and Rule 1 places the burden of supporting the requested relief on the party seeking it. The record establishes neither a separate price for the doors nor a reasonable calculation linking the unfinished work to €240. The fact that €240 is half the total quote does not itself show that half the work or value was unfinished. Élise candidly accepts this evidentiary gap, and the court cannot fill it by guessing. 13. Mathieu succeeds in opposing the requested amount because it is not supported by a valuation, not because he proved that the doors were excluded or completed. The court does not find that Élise agreed to replace the doors, that Mathieu gave an effective warning, or that the doors represented only a small fraction of the work; those assertions lack supporting proof. The result is limited to the claim and evidence before the court. No other specific remedy or amount is established in this record. Final order 14. The court finds that the accepted quote included painting the cabinet doors and that the doors were left unpainted. The court finds that Élise has not proved that €240, or another specific amount, is a fair refund for that incomplete work. 15. Élise’s claim for a €240 refund is denied. No payment is ordered from Mathieu to Élise. The defendant prevails because the requested monetary relief is not proven; this order does not find that the agreed work was fully completed.