Irbid civil court denies 30 JOD refund for missing cake-box labels over lack of valuation proof
This report covers a fictional proceeding argued and decided inside Legal Arena.
The labels remained part of the paid-for package, but the combined price and cropped delivery message supplied no basis for valuing the missing items at 30 JOD.
Read the original in-game verdictThe decision
The Civil court in Irbid has denied Dalia Haddad’s request for a 30 JOD refund for printed labels missing from an order of 100 cake boxes. Although the labels remained part of the agreed package, the court found no evidence establishing that 30 JOD represented their value. It ordered no payment or other monetary relief.
The dispute turned on two separate questions: whether Haddad’s instruction to send the boxes without waiting meant she had given up the labels, and whether she had proved the amount she wanted back. Samer Nassar succeeded on the second question, not the first.
The court's reasons
The principal evidence was a readable WhatsApp exchange recording a price of 120 JOD for 100 cake boxes with printed labels, to be added after design approval. Haddad accepted, and Nassar acknowledged payment. The messages contained neither a separate label price nor an approval deadline.
No message showed that a design had been sent for approval. The court therefore declined to treat the absence of approval as a reason to disregard the promise to supply labels.
A cropped delivery-day screenshot established that Haddad wanted the boxes sent without delay. But it omitted the preceding exchange and did not establish that she permanently waived the labels or accepted an unchanged price for plain boxes. Nassar’s acknowledgment that he neither clarified her intention nor offered labels afterward further weakened his position that the original obligation had been replaced.
The missing labels nevertheless did not prove the requested refund amount. The court applied the supplied burden-of-proof and proportional-remedy rules: a monetary remedy had to match harm supported by evidence. It could not divide the package price by assumption, and there was no reliable basis for awarding a different sum.
The parties' submissions
Haddad argued that permission to deliver promptly was not permission to omit a paid-for part of the order permanently. She said no design had been sent for approval and relied on the original written package terms. She acknowledged, however, that 30 JOD was an estimate without a written calculation.
Nassar’s side relied on the approval condition and Haddad’s instruction not to delay delivery. It accepted that the instruction was ambiguous and did not conclusively establish a waiver, while arguing that proof of missing labels should be distinguished from proof of their monetary value.
The defence also cited Articles 202 and 363 of the Jordanian Civil Code concerning contractual performance, good faith and actual damage. The judgment resolved the dispute under the supplied rules governing contract terms, conditions, consumer promises and proof of loss.
The background
Haddad paid the full 120 JOD and received and used all 100 plain boxes. Neither party disputed those basic facts. No separate price for plain boxes or labels was recorded.
The judgment leaves the labels’ value undetermined. Denial of the refund was not a finding that Haddad received everything promised, or that the omitted labels had no value; it reflected the absence of evidence supporting the specific amount claimed.