Original in-game verdict

1. Background 2. This matter concerns a claimed €180 shortage discovered at the end of a closing shift at Étienne Marchal’s shop. Étienne Marchal says Nora Benali had control of the counter and that the missing cash should be repaid. Nora Benali denies deliberate theft and says there was confusion during the count, including a problem involving a large bill and shared access to the till. 3. The hearing record contains a handwritten closing cash-count note prepared by Étienne Marchal. It records that the till was €180 short after the Saturday closing count. The note is available in the record, but it is unsigned and does not list each denomination counted. The parties also submitted several written statements, including later submissions in which the plaintiff narrowed the claim and acknowledged the limits of the proof. 4. Issues for determination 5. The first issue is whether the plaintiff proved that €180 was missing. The second issue is whether the plaintiff proved that Nora Benali caused that shortage. The third issue is whether the defendant provided a concrete alternative explanation that would defeat the plaintiff’s claim or at least leave the cause of the shortage unresolved. 6. Submissions of the parties 7. Étienne Marchal’s position was that Nora Benali controlled the till at closing, the count was short immediately after her shift, and the closing note records the shortage. He asked for repayment of €180. In later submissions, however, the plaintiff accepted that the record proves a shortage, not a proven theft by Nora Benali. 8. Nora Benali’s position was that there was no substantial proof of deliberate theft. She said she was struggling with a counting issue involving a large bill, that she warned management, and that she was not the only person with access. She also argued that the record does not show a reliable basis for personal liability. 9. Evidence and findings 10. On the first issue, I find that the plaintiff has proved a recorded €180 shortage. The handwritten closing note is not perfect evidence because it is unsigned and incomplete, but it is a direct written record from the plaintiff and it is consistent with the repeated submissions. On this record, the existence of a claimed shortage is established. 11. On the second issue, I find that the plaintiff has not proved that Nora Benali caused the shortage. The timing of the shortage, and the fact that Nora handled the counter, may raise suspicion. But suspicion is not proof. The record does not contain direct evidence that Nora took the cash, nor does it contain a reliable identification of her as the person responsible for the missing money. The plaintiff’s own later submissions correctly acknowledge that the evidence shows a shortage, not a proven theft by Nora. 12. On the third issue, I find that the defendant has not proved a concrete alternative explanation for the shortage. The defendant’s account of counting confusion, a large bill, and shared access is possible, but it remains general. The WhatsApp message in the record suggests confusion, yet it does not explain where the €180 went or why the count was wrong. That means the defendant’s explanation is not established, but this does not help the plaintiff on the missing causation issue. 13. Reasons 14. The governing principle is simple: the side asking for relief must prove the key facts supporting that relief. Here, the plaintiff needed to prove more than a shortage. He needed to prove that Nora Benali was responsible for it. The record supports the first point but not the second. 15. The closing note carries some weight because it is a contemporaneous written record of the count. But its weight is limited by the lack of a second signature, the absence of a full denomination breakdown, and the absence of any direct evidence connecting Nora Benali to the missing cash. The note can show that a shortage was recorded; it cannot, by itself, show who caused it. 16. The defendant’s submissions also do not fully explain the shortage. However, the defendant did not have the burden to prove an innocent explanation unless the plaintiff first proved the accusation. Because the plaintiff did not prove causation, the claim cannot succeed on suspicion alone. 17. The plaintiff’s later submissions were helpful because they were careful and realistic. They accepted the limits of the record and did not overstate what the evidence proves. That honesty does not create proof where none exists. It does, however, confirm that the proper finding is a recorded shortage, not a proven theft by Nora Benali. 18. Final order 19. The claim against Nora Benali is dismissed. 20. Étienne Marchal is not awarded repayment on the present record. 21. The court finds that a €180 shortage was recorded, but it is not proven that Nora Benali caused that shortage. 22. No further relief is granted.