Original in-game verdict

Background 1. Nora Ellis seeks $600 from Caleb Wynn for the remaining balance under a menu design agreement. The presented agreement states that the balance is payable upon delivery of the final menu files. Caleb disputes that Nora delivered usable final files. The hearing has concluded, and both parties have had the opportunity to address the evidence and requested result. Issues for determination 2. The issues are whether Nora proved delivery of the final menu files and, if so, whether the agreement makes the $600 balance payable. Nora bears the burden because she asks the court to order payment. Under Rule 1, the party seeking relief must support it with specific facts, records, or testimony. Rule 18 directs attention to business records defining the parties’ agreement, and Rule 23 requires a payment condition to occur before the dependent duty arises. Submissions of the parties 3. Nora argues that she sent the final menus by email and that Caleb’s saved copy shows two menu-named attachments. She acknowledges that the attachment names do not establish what the files contained or whether they opened. She says there is no additional obtainable proof of their contents or delivery, but continues to request the agreed $600. 4. Caleb asks the court to deny the claim. His counsel says Caleb did not open or review the email contents and argues that there is no reliable evidence that the attachments were final or usable. Caleb also invokes the supplied business-loyalty rule. That rule concerns loyalty and self-dealing by people with entrusted business authority; the record presents no claim or evidence of self-dealing relevant to this payment dispute. Evidence and findings 5. The signed menu design agreement is presented as exhibit-3-e1 and repeated as exhibits 5, 7, and 9. The descriptions are consistent: the agreement sets a $600 balance payable upon delivery of final menu files. Both sides accept that term. The agreement is reliable evidence of what triggers payment, but it does not itself prove that delivery occurred. 6. The saved email is described in the parties’ submissions as showing two menu-named attachments. The email itself and the attachments are not presented as exhibits. The descriptions support an inference that files may have been sent, but the court cannot inspect the email, verify its contents, or determine whether the attachments were final menu files. Nora’s account supports her position, but it is not independently confirmed by the presented record. Caleb’s counsel’s statement that Caleb did not review the contents likewise does not establish that the files were defective; it limits what Caleb can say about them. 7. Nora expressly acknowledges that the available record does not establish the contents or confirm delivery, and that no additional obtainable proof is available. The court therefore treats the uncertainty as a limit of the evidence, not as proof that Nora did not send any files. Nor does the court find that Caleb proved the files were unusable. The question is whether Nora proved the condition required for payment. Reasons 8. On delivery, the agreement requires delivery of final menu files, not merely the sending of files bearing menu-related names. The described attachment names provide some support for Nora’s account that files were sent. But the record does not establish what those files contained, whether they were final, or whether they were delivered as the agreement required. Rule 2 favors reliable records over unsupported recollection when available; here, the described email is not itself before the court, and the attachments cannot be assessed. Nora’s candid acknowledgment of this gap is appropriate, but it does not satisfy her burden. The issue of delivery is not proven. 9. On the balance, the agreement makes payment conditional on delivery. Under Rule 23, the court must determine whether that condition occurred before ordering payment. Because Nora has not proven delivery of the final files, the record does not establish that the $600 became payable. This conclusion does not depend on finding that Caleb proved a defect or acted improperly. It follows from Nora’s burden to establish the condition supporting her claim. 10. Caleb’s business-loyalty argument does not change the result. Rule 17 addresses loyalty and self-dealing, while the evidence and agreement concern a payment for menu design work. No relevant self-dealing issue is established. The court does not rely on that rule in deciding the claim. Final order 11. Judgment is entered for defendant Caleb Wynn. Plaintiff Nora Ellis’s claim for the $600 balance is denied. No payment is ordered from Caleb to Nora, and no other relief is supported by the record. This judgment resolves only the claim presented on the available evidence; it does not find that no files were ever sent or that Caleb proved the files were unusable.