Original in-game verdict

Background 1. Iryna Levchenko, the plaintiff, seeks a UAH 1,200 refund from Taras Kovalchuk, the defendant, in a dispute about a cabinet delivery and unfinished handles. The hearing record includes a delivery-day Viber exchange retained by both parties and their written submissions. The plaintiff was invited to explain the agreement, what happened after the return offer, and the refund calculation, but supplied no further usable explanation. The defendant made final submissions and acknowledged the limits of his evidence. 2. The plaintiff's submissions include statements that do not explain the cabinet agreement or support a refund. The statement that the plaintiff should pay the defendant UAH 100 million is not a supported request in this claim. The statement alleging that the plaintiff killed the defendant is unsupported by any evidence in this civil contract record and is not a matter decided here. Neither statement changes the contract issues before the court. Issues for determination 3. The court determines: (a) what the record establishes about the promised work and its completion; (b) whether Taras had a fair chance to finish the handles; and (c) whether the plaintiff proved that UAH 1,200, or any other amount, is a fair refund. Under Rule 1, the party asking for relief must point to facts or records supporting it. Rules 21 and 22 make the agreement and the importance of any incomplete work relevant. Rules 39 and 4 make a fair chance to correct a problem and fair warning relevant. Rule 6 requires a remedy to match proven harm. Submissions of the parties 4. The plaintiff's initial submissions do not set out the agreement's terms or explain the requested refund. The plaintiff did not answer the final invitation to identify the strongest reason for the requested result. The court therefore has no plaintiff account explaining the price, the value of the unfinished handles, or what happened after the delivery-day exchange. 5. Taras says he did not abandon the job: he offered to return to fit the handles, and Iryna asked him to message before coming. He says Iryna later told him not to come, but accepts that the written exchange does not prove that later refusal. He also accepts that the handles remained unfinished and that he did not arrange another visit or have a later message showing one. He asks the court to deny or reduce the UAH 1,200 request, while acknowledging he has no calculation or record showing why that amount is too much. Evidence and findings 6. The shared Viber exchange, identified as exhibits 2, 4, 6, and 8, is the same delivery-day exchange repeated in the record, not four independent conversations. Both parties retain it. It says: “Cabinet delivered. Handles still to fit; I can come back.” Iryna replies: “The cabinet is here, yes. Message me before coming.” Because both parties retain the exchange and its contents are consistent across the presented copies, it is reliable evidence of what was said on delivery day. Its weight is limited to that exchange; it does not establish the full contract or later events. 7. The exchange and Taras's repeated admissions establish that the cabinet was delivered with handles still to fit. They also establish that Taras offered to return and that Iryna asked him to message before coming. They do not establish that the handles were later fitted, that a return appointment was made, or that Iryna later refused a proposed visit. Taras's account of a later refusal is an attributed account, not a produced message or other independent proof. His admission that no later visit was arranged is consistent with the absence of a later record, but does not by itself prove that either party prevented completion. 8. No evidence explains how UAH 1,200 was calculated or what portion of the bargain the unfinished handles represented. There is no receipt, estimate, price breakdown, or other record of the loss. The court cannot treat the requested figure as proof of the amount merely because it was claimed. Nor does the defendant's lack of a competing calculation prove the plaintiff's figure. Reasons 9. On the first issue, the plaintiff has proved incomplete work at delivery: the handles remained to be fitted. The defendant's own account confirms this, and the shared message is direct support. The record does not establish the full terms of the agreement, the deadline for fitting the handles, or whether they were later completed. The finding is therefore limited to the unfinished handles at delivery. Under Rules 21 and 22, that is a real shortfall, but the record does not show its broader importance to the bargain or establish a more extensive breach. This issue is established only to that limited extent. 10. On the second issue, the message supports Taras's claim that he offered to return, but also shows that a return required further contact: Iryna asked him to message before coming. The message does not prove that a visit was arranged or that Iryna refused one. Taras admits he did not arrange another visit and has no further record. Iryna provides no account of what happened afterward. Under Rule 39, the chance to correct a problem can matter; under Rule 4, fair warning matters. On this record, neither a completed opportunity to finish nor a refusal of that opportunity is proved. The court does not infer abandonment by Taras or obstruction by Iryna. 11. On the third issue, the plaintiff bears the burden of supporting the requested remedy. Rule 6 requires the remedy to match the proven harm. Although the unfinished handles are established, there is no evidence of their value, the cost to fit them, or another loss that would support UAH 1,200. The defendant's offer to return is relevant to the circumstances, but does not establish that no refund is due; equally, his inability to disprove the figure cannot fill the plaintiff's evidentiary gap. The court cannot select an alternative amount without a factual basis. The requested amount and any other monetary amount are therefore not proven. 12. The plaintiff's claim fails for lack of proof of the amount of relief, not because the court finds that all work was completed or that the defendant proved a later refusal. The defendant prevails on the requested payment claim, while the record leaves the parties' later conduct unresolved. No adjournment is appropriate: the hearing has reached closing, and the record identifies no specific obtainable proof that can now be supplied. Final order 13. Judgment is entered for the defendant, Taras Kovalchuk, on the plaintiff's claim for a UAH 1,200 refund. The claim is denied, and no payment is ordered from either party to the other. The court finds that the cabinet was delivered with handles unfinished, but does not find that the plaintiff proved the requested refund or any alternative amount. The court makes no finding that the defendant completed the handles, that the plaintiff refused a later visit, or that the defendant abandoned the work. No other relief is granted.