Original in-game verdict

Background 1. Elena Brooks seeks return of the $120 she paid to Curtis Hale’s appliance-care business for an appointment scheduled for June 18, 2026, at 10:00 a.m. The parties’ submissions agree that the receipt promised a full refund if Elena canceled at least 24 hours before the appointment. The dispute is whether Elena made a qualifying cancellation by the deadline. 2. The hearing record includes the paid booking receipt, presented more than once, and the parties’ submissions. The receipt is evidence of the payment and the stated refund terms. The submissions describe a June 17 message and a June 16 message, but the messages themselves are not presented. Elena acknowledges that the June 16 message cannot be shown. The record describes Curtis as having a screenshot of the June 17 message, but that screenshot is not itself presented here. Issues for determination 3. The issues are whether the receipt established a refund promise and whether Elena proved that she canceled at least 24 hours before the appointment. Elena bears the burden of proving the facts supporting her request for a refund under Rule 1, The Claim Needs Proof. Submissions of the parties 4. Elena says the receipt promised a full refund for timely cancellation and did not require Curtis to confirm a cancellation. She says her June 16 message began as a question but ended by instructing Curtis to remove her from the schedule. She argues that the June 17 screenshot does not disprove an earlier cancellation. Elena requests return of the full $120. 5. Curtis asks the court to deny the refund or reduce it. His submissions emphasize that the screenshot shows a June 17 cancellation message and does not show a June 16 message. Curtis does not identify a receipt term requiring confirmation. His submissions do not provide the screenshot itself or other evidence establishing that Elena did not send an earlier cancellation. Evidence and findings 6. The receipt records a $120 payment for the June 18 appointment and states: “Cancel at least 24 hours before your appointment for a full refund. Later cancellations are nonrefundable.” It gives Curtis’s business text number for appointment changes and does not require confirmation. I find the payment and the written refund terms established. This finding rests on the presented receipt, not merely on either party’s argument. 7. Elena’s submissions consistently describe a June 16 message that ended with an instruction to remove her from the schedule. Her account is relevant, but it is an attributed account in submissions, not the message itself or admitted witness testimony. Elena also acknowledges that the message cannot be shown and that the court cannot read its exact words. The described June 17 screenshot establishes, at most, that a later message existed; because the screenshot is not presented and does not address the earlier message, it does not resolve whether Elena canceled on June 16. Reasons 8. The receipt’s promise is specific and clear. Under Rule 37, Consumer Promises Count, a service provider is held to specific promises about price, timing, and deliverables. The receipt therefore governs the refund question: a cancellation at least 24 hours before the appointment qualifies for a full refund. Nothing in the receipt makes the refund depend on Curtis confirming the cancellation. Elena has established the applicable promise. 9. The remaining question is whether Elena proved that she met the stated deadline. The appointment was scheduled for June 18 at 10:00 a.m.; the receipt’s 24-hour condition required cancellation by June 17 at 10:00 a.m. Elena relies on her account of a June 16 message. If that message conveyed a definite cancellation, it would support her claim. But the message is unavailable, and the record does not establish its exact wording or when it was sent. The receipt cannot fill that gap: it proves what the parties agreed would qualify, not what Elena later communicated. 10. Rule 2, Reliable Records Beat Vague Stories, recognizes that written records and timestamps generally carry more weight than unsupported recollections. Here, the missing June 16 message leaves the court with Elena’s account of its contents and timing. The described June 17 screenshot does not prove that no earlier message existed, as Elena correctly argues; however, it also does not prove that an earlier message did exist or that it canceled the appointment. The absence of proof against Elena does not satisfy the burden that Rule 1 places on her to support her request. 11. Curtis’s argument is therefore persuasive only to the extent that the record does not establish a timely cancellation. It is not a finding that Elena definitely failed to send a June 16 message. Nor does Curtis establish a confirmation requirement or prove that the June 17 message was the first communication. The decisive point is narrower: the available record leaves the timing and content of the alleged earlier cancellation uncertain, and Elena bears the burden on that issue. Her account, considered with the other available material, does not establish the required fact. 12. Because timely cancellation is not proven, the condition for a refund under the receipt has not been established. The request is for the $120 paid, and the receipt supports that amount if the condition is met. No separate basis for a reduced award is established. The claim must therefore be denied rather than reduced. Final order 13. The court finds that the receipt established a $120 payment and a promise of a full refund for cancellation at least 24 hours before the appointment. The court finds that Elena did not prove that she canceled by that deadline. Her claim for a $120 refund is denied. No payment is ordered from Curtis Hale to Elena Brooks under this judgment.