Original in-game verdict

Background 1. Juniper Crumb Bakery LLC paid Northline Print Works LLC $480 for a folding display sign and price cards. Juniper asks for a $480 refund, asserting that the display was not ready for a Friday market deadline. Northline denies that it owes a refund and says the parties moved the schedule to Monday, when the display was ready for pickup. 2. The hearing record includes the paid invoice, a screenshot of a Thursday text, and a timestamped Monday pickup-ready message. It also includes statements from both parties and saved client accounts relayed through counsel. Those client accounts are attributed descriptions, not independently verified documents or admitted witness testimony. The record does not include the full Thursday conversation, a separate completion record, or a pickup record. Issues for determination 3. The issues are whether Juniper proved that the Friday timing remained part of the parties' agreement, and whether Juniper proved a failure to provide the display that entitles it to a full refund. Juniper bears the burden on its request for relief under Rule 1, The Claim Needs Proof. Submissions of the parties 4. Juniper argues that Northline's invoice says “Needed Fri.” and that the Thursday message asked Juniper to confirm Monday pickup. Juniper says the record contains no confirmation, and that its owner's failure to fully read the message is not agreement. Juniper seeks the full $480 and allowable filing costs, relying on the asserted failure to meet the Friday market deadline. 5. Northline argues that the original schedule became unrealistic after artwork changes, that Juniper agreed to a revised Monday schedule, and that the display was ready Monday but never collected. Northline relies on the Thursday screenshot and Monday message, as well as its client's account that the display was completed and kept at the shop. Northline asks the court to reject the refund claim. Evidence and findings 6. The invoice, identified as exhibit-3-e1 and repeated as exhibit-7-e1, is a contemporaneous business record. It establishes the order, the $480 total, and the handwritten notation “Needed Fri.” It does not specify a pickup hour, state a refund policy, or explain whether later artwork changes altered the timing. Northline's argument that the notation reflected only an initial request is possible, but the invoice itself does not say that. 7. The Thursday screenshot, exhibit-6-e2 and exhibit-7-e2, shows a Northline employee writing, “Artwork looks good now. We can finish Monday morning—please confirm pickup.” It shows delivery and no reply in the screenshot. It supports that Northline proposed Monday and sought confirmation. It does not show Juniper's affirmative agreement. Because the full conversation is not supplied, the screenshot cannot establish that no other relevant exchange occurred; neither can the court assume that one did. 8. The Monday message, exhibit-4-e3 and exhibit-7-e3, is an exported, timestamped message stating, “Your display is ready whenever you can collect it.” It reliably establishes that Northline sent that message on Monday. It supports Northline's position that it represented the display as ready then. It does not independently establish when the display was completed, whether it was ready by Friday, or whether Juniper agreed to a changed deadline. 9. Northline's saved client accounts, including exhibit-4-client-statement:1, exhibit-4-client-statement:7, and exhibit-6-client-statement:7, say the display was completed and retained at the shop and Juniper did not collect it. These accounts are relevant but are not independent records or admitted testimony. Juniper's submissions say the display was not ready for the Friday market, but the submissions do not provide a separate record of completion, collection, or the display's condition. The court does not treat either party's assertion alone as proof of those disputed details. Reasons 10. On the deadline issue, the invoice is the strongest direct evidence of what Juniper needed when the order was placed. The Thursday screenshot shows a later proposed Monday finish and a request for confirmation, not a confirmed change. Under Rule 18, Business Records Define the Deal, the invoice and messages are useful evidence of the parties' arrangement; under Rule 37, Consumer Promises Count, a specific timing promise matters. But the record does not establish the complete agreement after the artwork changes. Juniper has not proved that the Friday notation remained an unconditional final deadline, and Northline has not proved that Juniper agreed to Monday. The issue is therefore not proven in either direction; the uncertainty does not itself establish a breach. 11. On performance and refund, the Monday message is evidence that Northline said the display was ready Monday. It does not prove Friday readiness, but neither does the record establish that the display was unusable, never completed, or not made available under the parties' final arrangement. Northline's account of completion and retention has limited weight without an independent completion record. Still, Juniper bears the burden of proving its entitlement to the requested refund. The invoice proves payment, not that the entire order's value was lost. 12. Rule 6, The Remedy Should Match the Harm, requires the requested remedy to be tied to proven injury. The record contains no evidence establishing the value of any completed work, whether the display could be collected or used, or a basis for calculating a lesser refund. The court cannot invent those amounts. Juniper's claim for the full $480 is not supported by sufficient proof. This conclusion does not find that Northline proved every part of its account; it reflects Juniper's burden on its claim. Final order 13. Judgment is entered for Northline Print Works LLC on Juniper Crumb Bakery LLC's claim. Juniper's request for a $480 refund is denied. No money is awarded to either party under this judgment. The request for allowable filing costs is also denied because the record supplies no basis to determine or award a specific amount. This judgment resolves only the claim and evidence presented; it does not determine any separate rights concerning collection or ownership of the display.