Original in-game verdict

Background 1. Nora Bell paid Evan Mercer $600 for a folding table. She asks for the full payment back because the table was not ready by May 10, the date she says Evan promised. Evan disputes that May 10 became a firm deadline and says the date was an estimate affected by materials. He also says Nora refused the table and that work had begun. Nora denies that the record proves what happened after May 10. 2. The court decides the claim on the shared hearing record and the supplied rules. The parties’ submissions are arguments and accounts; they are not automatically proof. The presented messages and invoice are considered for what they show, with their limits. Issues for determination 3. The issues are whether the parties made May 10 a firm deadline, whether the table was ready by that date, and whether the evidence supports returning the full $600. Nora bears the burden of proving the facts supporting her requested relief under Rule 1. Submissions of the parties 4. Nora argues that the invoice’s estimated date was made firm by a later exchange. She asked, “Can you commit to that?” and Evan replied, “Yes, I’ll have it ready by then.” She relies on Evan’s May 10 message that the table was not ready and seeks the $600 back, not an order requiring delivery. 5. Evan argues that the original agreement made May 10 an estimate and tied timing to materials. He points to a receipt for lumber and hardware bought before May 10, says work had begun, and says Nora refused the table afterward. He maintains that he should be allowed to finish and provide it. Nora responds that the record does not establish completion, an actual offer, delivery, acceptance, or refusal. Evidence and findings 6. The invoice exhibit states “estimated completion: May 10” and records a $600 payment for one folding table. It is contemporaneous evidence of the initial date language and payment. It does not contain a presented written materials condition. The receipt exhibit shows Evan bought lumber and folding hardware for $180 before May 10. It proves a purchase, but does not identify the intended project or show whether the materials could be reused. 7. The later deadline exchange is a presented written message. Nora expressly asked whether Evan could commit to May 10, and Evan answered, “Yes, I’ll have it ready by then.” The exchange is direct evidence of what was said. Evan’s argument that he meant only that he would try is not supported by a different written qualification in the record. The court finds that the later exchange made May 10 a firm commitment, notwithstanding the invoice’s earlier estimate. 8. Evan’s May 10 message states, “The table isn’t ready today. I can finish it next week.” This is direct evidence that the table was not ready on May 10. It does not prove that Evan later finished it or offered it. Evan’s statements that Nora refused the table and that work had begun are attributed accounts. They are relevant, but no independent record in this hearing confirms those events or establishes the value of work performed. Reasons 9. Rule 21 directs the court to begin with the agreement’s terms. The invoice supports Evan’s position that the original date was an estimate. But the later exchange addressed that very uncertainty: Nora asked for a commitment, and Evan answered affirmatively. Under Rule 37, a specific promise about timing counts. The court therefore finds, on the balance of the presented evidence, that May 10 became a firm deadline. The receipt does not change that result. It shows a purchase before the deadline, not an agreed condition excusing performance or a qualification to Evan’s later promise. 10. The table was not ready by May 10. That fact is established by Evan’s own written message. Because the date was binding, the failure to have the table ready was a breach of the timing commitment. The court does not find that Evan acted deliberately or that he never intended to perform; those matters are not necessary to decide the proven failure to meet the date. 11. The remaining question is the remedy. Rule 22 recognizes that not every failure justifies ending performance or returning all money. Rule 6 requires a remedy to match the proven harm, and Rule 1 places the burden of supporting the requested amount on Nora. The invoice proves payment of $600, but payment alone does not establish that the full amount is the appropriate refund after the missed date. 12. The record does not establish whether the table was later completed, offered, delivered, accepted, or kept. Evan’s assertion that Nora refused it is not independently confirmed, and the court does not treat it as established. Equally, Nora’s assertion that she did not receive the table is not supported by evidence resolving what happened after May 10. The court cannot fill that gap by assuming either delivery or non-delivery. The lumber receipt also does not establish the value of work or materials attributable to this table, or whether they could be reused. Thus, the evidence proves a missed deadline but does not provide a reliable basis to calculate a full refund or another specific monetary amount. 13. Nora’s choice to seek money rather than delivery is respected. But the court cannot award the full $600 merely because the deadline was missed when the record leaves the later performance and value of the bargain unresolved. This is not a finding that Evan’s account of refusal is true, nor a finding that Nora received the table. It is a finding that Nora has not carried her burden to prove the requested amount on this record. No further obtainable proof has been identified, and the matter is decided on the evidence presented. Final order 14. The court finds that Evan agreed to have the table ready by May 10 and that it was not ready on that date. The court finds that Nora has not proved that a $600 refund, or another specific monetary award, is justified by the available evidence. 15. Nora’s claim for a $600 refund is denied. No money is ordered paid by either party to the other. This judgment resolves the monetary relief requested in this hearing; it does not determine whether the table was later completed, offered, delivered, accepted, or retained.