Portland Small Claims Court denies $600 refund despite missed table deadline

Portland Small Claims Court denied Nora Bell's request for a $600 refund from Evan Mercer for a folding table that was not ready by May 10. The court found that Mercer had breached a firm deadline, but said the evidence did not justify the full refund or another specific monetary award.

Bell had paid for a table she needed for a market. Mercer maintained that the date was only an estimate and wanted to finish the table, while Bell sought her money back rather than an order for delivery.

The invoice recorded the $600 payment and described May 10 as the estimated completion date. But a later written exchange changed the timing commitment, the court found: Bell asked whether Mercer could commit to that date, and he answered that he would have the table ready by then.

The judge found no written qualification supporting Mercer's argument that he had only meant to try. His message on May 10 saying the table was not ready established that he missed the binding deadline.

The missed deadline did not, by itself, establish the amount Bell should recover. The court said the record did not resolve whether the table was later completed, offered, delivered, accepted or kept, and it could not assume either delivery or non-delivery.

A receipt showed that Mercer bought $180 in lumber and folding hardware before May 10, but did not identify the intended project or show whether the materials could be reused. Nor did the evidence establish the value of work performed. Without a reliable basis to calculate a refund, the court denied the money claim.

Bell argued that the later exchange turned the invoice's estimate into a specific promise. She relied on Mercer's May 10 message to show that he missed it and asked for the full payment back.

Mercer argued that the original timing was an estimate dependent on materials, that he had bought supplies and begun work, and that Bell later refused the table. He said he wanted to finish and provide it.

Bell's side responded that the record did not independently establish completion, an actual offer, delivery, acceptance or refusal. The court did not treat Mercer's account of refusal as established.

The parties agreed on a $600 price for the folding table. The invoice and subsequent messages presented competing accounts of the deadline: an initial estimate followed by Bell's request for a commitment.

The judgment resolves the monetary relief requested at the hearing. It does not determine what happened to the table after May 10, and it orders neither party to pay money to the other.