Original in-game verdict

Background 1. Elena Brooks brought this contract claim against Calvin Reed. She says she paid $600 for 24 edited photos, received twelve, and understood that the remaining twelve would be delivered after the launch. She asks for $300 back and for Calvin to provide twelve more edited photos. 2. Calvin acknowledges the original $600-for-24 arrangement. He argues that the later exchange may have changed the expected delivery to twelve photos, and that Elena’s approval and use of those photos show they had value. He also argues that the record does not support both requested remedies or establish a $300 value for the missing photos. Issues for determination 3. The issues are whether the original agreement still required 24 photos after the launch-week exchange, and whether the evidence supports a particular remedy for the twelve photos not delivered. 4. Under the supplied burden-of-proof rule, Elena must support the facts needed for the relief she requests. The supplied contract rule directs the court to begin with the agreement’s terms. The remedy must match the proven harm, and a material breach may affect what remedy is appropriate. Submissions of the parties 5. Elena relies on the accepted quote and payment for 24 edited photos at a total price of $600. She says Calvin’s statement that they could discuss the rest after launch meant the remaining photos would still be provided. She explains that “Twelve works for launch” meant twelve were sufficient for the launch, not that she accepted twelve as the complete order. She maintains that she did not agree to pay $600 for only twelve photos. 6. Calvin acknowledges the original terms. He relies on the text exchange in which he asked, “Would twelve work?” and Elena replied, “Twelve works for launch. Send those over.” He also relies on his email calling the twelve delivered photos the “finished set,” and Elena’s reply that they looked great and were being used on her shop page. Calvin accepts that the text can be read either way and does not establish that the original obligation was canceled. His principal point is that the record does not establish the requested refund amount or justify both a refund and additional work. Evidence and findings 7. The parties’ submissions identify an accepted quote and payment for $600 for 24 edited photos. Calvin expressly acknowledges those original terms in statement-4, and Elena identifies them in statements 1 and 3. The record therefore supports the original price and deliverable. The court does not treat either party’s argument alone as proof, but the parties’ agreement on those terms, together with the identified quote and payment, establishes them for this hearing. 8. The screenshot (exhibit-2-e2) is presented by Calvin and is available for consideration. It shows his question about whether twelve would work and Elena’s answer that twelve worked “for launch.” The screenshot ends at that reply. It is authentic enough to consider as the parties’ written exchange on this record, but its short wording is ambiguous. “For launch” supports Elena’s explanation that she accepted a first batch for a particular purpose; it also gives some support to Calvin’s view that twelve were accepted. It does not expressly say that the remaining twelve were canceled or that the total price changed. 9. The delivery email (exhibit-2-e3) lists twelve files, calls them the “finished set,” and records Elena’s positive response and use of the images. Both parties acknowledge that twelve were delivered and used. This is meaningful evidence that the delivered work had value. But the email does not expressly state that Elena agreed to replace the original 24-photo order with a 12-photo order. Nor does approval of the delivered photos, without more, establish that the remaining deliverable was waived. 10. The court finds that the original agreement remained for 24 photos. The record establishes delivery of twelve and does not establish delivery of the other twelve. The later exchange and email do not prove a clear change to the original quantity. Reasons 11. On the first issue, Elena has met her burden. The original terms are supported by the parties’ accounts of the quote and payment, and Calvin acknowledges them. The screenshot is ambiguous, and its wording is consistent with twelve being accepted for the launch while the balance remained due. The email’s “finished set” phrase is evidence for Calvin’s position, but it is not a clear amendment to the original agreement. Elena’s praise and use of the photos show that the delivered work was useful; they do not, by themselves, show that she agreed to give up the remaining twelve. The court therefore finds that 24 photos remained due under the agreement. 12. On the remedy issue, Elena has not met her burden to establish the requested relief. The record supports that half the photos were delivered and used, but it does not provide a price allocation for the missing half. Although dividing $600 by 24 would produce a simple per-photo figure, the record does not establish that the parties priced the work evenly by photo or that such a calculation accounts for editing, selection, or other work. The court will not assume that $300 is the proper refund merely because twelve of 24 photos were not delivered. 13. Elena also asks for twelve additional photos. The record does not establish whether Calvin can still produce them, what delivery terms would apply, or whether that remedy is feasible. The court cannot order both a refund and additional photos without proof that each is warranted, and cannot select one of those remedies on speculation. The fact that the twelve delivered photos had value does not excuse the failure to deliver the remaining photos; it does matter in assessing the requested remedy and confirms that the record does not support treating the entire $600 payment as having bought no work. 14. The court has considered the parties’ final submissions. Elena’s explanation reinforces the original quantity but supplies no new calculation or evidence supporting the requested $300 or the feasibility of further delivery. Calvin’s response fairly concedes the ambiguity and focuses on the value of the delivered work and the unsupported remedy. The unresolved remedy gap is material, and Elena bears the burden on it. No further obtainable proof is identified, and the court decides the claim on the available record. Final order 15. The court finds that the agreement required 24 edited photos for $600 and that only twelve were shown to have been delivered. The court nevertheless finds that Elena has not established a sufficiently supported monetary amount or a basis for ordering twelve additional photos on this record. 16. Elena’s requests for a $300 refund and for twelve additional edited photos are denied. No payment is ordered from either party to the other. This judgment resolves the relief requested in this hearing; it does not find that the original 24-photo obligation was fulfilled.