Original in-game verdict

Background 1. Dalia Haddad seeks a 30 JOD refund from Samer Nassar for printed labels that were not delivered with 100 cake boxes. The parties agree that Dalia paid 120 JOD and received and used 100 plain boxes. The dispute concerns whether labels remained part of the bargain after Dalia asked that delivery not be delayed, and whether 30 JOD is a supported measure of the loss. 2. The court decides the case on the shared hearing record and the supplied rules. The written messages are presented exhibits. The parties’ submissions are arguments and accounts, not independent proof merely because they are stated. Samer’s saved client account is attributed to him through counsel; it is not an independently verified document or admitted witness testimony. The parties’ agreement on the basic quote, payment, and delivery, together with the readable message exhibit, provides the principal evidence. Issues for determination 3. The first issue is whether the agreement still required Samer to provide labels after the delivery-day instruction. Dalia bears the burden of proving the obligation she relies on. The relevant supplied rules are Rule 21, contract-terms-control; Rule 23, conditions-must-happen-first; and Rule 37, consumer-promises-must-be-honored. 4. The second issue is whether Dalia proved that 30 JOD represents a recoverable loss. Dalia bears the burden of supporting the amount she requests. Rule 1, burden-of-proof, and Rule 6, proportional-remedy, require a remedy supported by the record and matched to the proven harm. Submissions of the parties 5. Dalia says the written offer was for 100 boxes with printed labels for 120 JOD, and she accepted it. She says the labels were conditional on design approval, but no design was sent for her approval. She explains that her later instruction was permission to send the boxes promptly, not agreement to give up the labels or pay the full price for an incomplete package. She asks for 30 JOD, while acknowledging that the messages do not assign a separate label price and that her figure is an estimate without a written calculation. 6. Samer acknowledges that the original quote included labels, that no labels were made or delivered, and that the boxes were sent plain after Dalia said not to hold them up for labels. He says the approval condition and delivery instruction should be considered together. He also acknowledges that the instruction was ambiguous, that there is no record of a permanent waiver or revised price, and that he did not clarify Dalia’s intention or offer labels afterward. He argues that the requested 30 JOD is unsupported because the agreement did not allocate a separate price to labels. Evidence and findings 7. Exhibit 3-e1 records the exchange: “100 cake boxes with printed labels: 120 JOD. Labels after design approval.” Dalia replied, “Agreed,” and Samer later acknowledged receiving 120 JOD. The exhibit is readable, and the basic wording and price are not disputed. It proves that labels were included in the package, while also showing that their addition was linked to design approval. It does not state a separate label price or an approval deadline. 8. Exhibit 6-e2 is a legible but cropped delivery-day excerpt. It shows Dalia writing, “Send the boxes today; do not hold them up for the labels,” and Samer replying, “Sending now.” Both parties acknowledge that plain boxes were delivered and used. The excerpt supports Samer’s account that Dalia wanted the boxes sent without waiting for labels. Because it omits the preceding exchange, it does not establish that Dalia permanently waived the labels or agreed to a reduced or unchanged price for plain boxes. 9. Dalia says no design was sent or approved. The record contains no message showing that a design was sent for approval. Samer likewise says no design was clearly approved. The record therefore does not establish that the approval condition occurred. But the record also does not establish that the parties agreed the labels were permanently abandoned. Samer’s account, including his acknowledgment that he did not clarify or later offer the labels, is consistent with that evidentiary gap. 10. As to value, Dalia’s final submission acknowledges that 30 JOD is an estimate and that she has no written calculation. The quote gives only a combined price of 120 JOD for boxes and labels. No evidence in the record allocates any part of that price to labels or otherwise explains why 30 JOD is the appropriate amount. Reasons 11. On the first issue, the court finds that Dalia has established that labels remained part of the agreed package. Rule 21 directs the court to begin with the contract’s words. Those words expressly include printed labels in the package. Rule 23 requires attention to the approval condition. The record does not show approval, but neither does it show that Dalia was given a design to approve. The condition therefore cannot, on this record, be treated as a completed step that ended the obligation or as a reason to disregard the stated package promise. 12. The delivery-day instruction does not change that conclusion. It plainly authorized sending the boxes without waiting for labels at that time. It does not plainly say that Dalia gave up the labels permanently or accepted the full price for plain boxes. The screenshot’s cropped nature limits its weight on the parties’ full intention. Samer’s acknowledgment that he did not clarify the instruction or offer labels afterward further weakens the claim that the original obligation was clearly replaced. Rule 37 supports holding a seller to a specific promise about what the customer would receive. The court therefore finds the label obligation established, while recognizing that the record does not prove a permanent waiver or a revised agreement. 13. That finding does not itself establish the amount of money due. On the second issue, Dalia bears the burden of proving that the requested 30 JOD corresponds to the loss. The record proves that labels were not delivered, but it does not establish their separate value. The combined package price cannot, without a supporting basis, be divided by assumption. Dalia’s candid description of 30 JOD as an estimate does not supply the missing calculation. Under Rule 1, the court cannot treat the requested amount as proven merely because a shortfall occurred. Under Rule 6, the remedy must match the harm shown by evidence. The court therefore finds the specific 30 JOD loss not proven. 14. Samer succeeds on the amount, not on the contention that the delivery instruction conclusively ended the label obligation. The court does not find that Dalia received everything promised. It also does not award a different amount, because the record supplies no reliable basis for calculating one. This is a decision on the proof available, not a finding that the missing labels had no value. Final order 15. The court finds that the agreed package included printed labels and that the labels were not delivered. The court finds that Dalia has not proved that 30 JOD is the value of that shortfall or otherwise a supported amount of compensation. 16. Dalia’s claim for a 30 JOD refund is denied. No payment is ordered from Samer to Dalia, and no other monetary relief is granted on this record. This judgment does not determine a different label value that was not proved or requested with a supported calculation.