Original in-game verdict

Background 1. Claire Hoffmann seeks repayment of €300 from Tom Weber for menu cards. Tom asks the court to deny the request or reduce it. Both sides have had an opportunity to explain their positions and identify further evidence. They have said that no further obtainable records are available, and the matter is decided on the shared hearing record. 2. The record includes Tom’s message to Claire stating, “Menu cards dropped off at the café.” The same message is represented by several repeated exhibit entries; those entries describe the same message and are not independent corroboration. Claire’s side says a bank transaction was marked “menu cards” and says camera footage does not show Tom. Neither the bank record nor the footage was presented. Tom accepts that the transfer supports payment for the order, but says his message is his only delivery record. Issues for determination 3. The issues are whether the menu cards were delivered and whether Claire has proved a right to recover all or part of the €300. Under Rule 1, the party seeking relief must point to specific facts, records, or testimony supporting it. Rule 2 gives weight to reliable records, while recognizing that a record must be assessed for what it actually shows. Rule 18 recognizes that business records can establish the parties’ agreed terms. Rule 6 requires a remedy to match the harm proved. Submissions of the parties 4. Claire’s side argues that the payment was for menu cards and that Tom’s account of delivery is doubtful. It says camera footage does not show Tom and points to a claimed inconsistency about a waiter or witness. The record does not include the footage or a witness’s testimony. Claire’s side asks for repayment, but does not establish the agreed delivery terms or explain a supported alternative amount. 5. Tom says he left a box with someone behind the café counter and sent Claire a message that afternoon reporting a drop-off. He acknowledges that the message is not a signed receipt, does not name the recipient, and does not prove what was in the box. Tom has no order, receipt, or other record of the agreement or delivery. He asks the court to deny or reduce repayment. Evidence and findings 6. The payment is supported by Claire’s attributed account and, importantly, Tom’s acknowledgment that the transfer supports payment for the menu-card order. The bank record itself is not in evidence, so its exact details cannot be independently checked. Nevertheless, the parties’ accounts support a finding that Claire paid €300 for that order. 7. The delivery message is a presented exhibit. It proves that Tom sent a message reporting that menu cards had been dropped at the café. It is contemporaneous support for his account, but it is not a receipt or direct proof that the ordered cards reached Claire. Tom’s account that he handed a box to someone behind the counter is relevant, but he cannot identify that person or independently confirm the box’s contents. 8. Claire’s statement that camera footage does not show Tom is an allegation about unavailable footage, not an exhibit the court can inspect. The court cannot determine the footage’s coverage, timing, or reliability. Likewise, the claimed waiter inconsistency is not supported by testimony or a record identifying what was said and by whom. These points do not establish non-delivery. The record therefore leaves delivery uncertain; it does not establish either that the cards reached Claire or that they did not reach the café. Reasons 9. On delivery, Claire bears the burden because she seeks repayment. Tom’s message gives his account some support, but its wording reports a drop-off without identifying a recipient or contents. The message does not conclusively prove delivery. Equally, Claire’s unsupported description of footage cannot prove the opposite. The evidence is insufficient to resolve delivery in Claire’s favor. Under Rule 1, uncertainty on an element supporting her requested relief means that element is not proven. 10. On repayment, the evidence supports that Claire paid €300 for menu cards. Payment alone does not establish that the price must be returned. The record contains no order, invoice, or other reliable account of what Tom promised, when delivery was due, or what remedy the parties agreed to. Rule 18 makes such business records relevant to defining the deal, but none is available. The absence of those records does not itself prove Tom performed; it means the court cannot determine the bargain’s terms from this record. 11. Rule 6 also requires the requested remedy to match the harm proved. Claire has not established non-delivery, incomplete performance, or another specific loss, and the record supplies no basis for calculating a partial refund. Tom’s message is not enough to establish full performance, but Claire retains the burden of proving a right to relief. The court does not shift that burden to Tom merely because he lacks additional records. On the evidence available, neither full nor partial repayment is supported by a sufficiently established basis and amount. 12. The criminal-rule language included in Claire’s submissions does not govern this business dispute under the supplied laws and does not change the applicable burden. The court has considered the factual points raised, rather than treating legal labels or objections as evidence. Final order 13. Claire Hoffmann’s claim for repayment of €300 is denied. No amount is awarded to Claire, and neither party is ordered to pay the other under this claim. This decision does not find as a fact that Tom delivered the ordered cards; it finds that Claire has not proved a right to repayment on the available record. The result reflects the limits of the evidence, including the unavailable bank record and camera footage and the absence of records defining the order.