Original in-game verdict

Background 1. Nalin Suksai, the plaintiff, seeks a refund of THB 1,290 from Preecha Wattanakul, the defendant, in exchange for returning a discounted display rice cooker. Nalin says the cooker lacked the inner bowl needed to cook and that this was not disclosed before purchase. Preecha says Nalin was told beforehand that a separate bowl was needed. 2. The hearing record includes the parties’ submissions and a presented same-evening LINE exchange. The exchange is repeated in the record as exhibits 3-e1, 5-e1, and 7-e1, but those repetitions describe the same exchange and are not independent corroboration. No separate pre-purchase message, recording, or other sale record is identified. Nalin says no such additional record is available. Issues for determination 3. The issues are whether Nalin has proven that the missing bowl was not disclosed before purchase, and whether the requested refund in exchange for return is supported. Under Rule 1, the party seeking relief must point to facts, records, or testimony supporting the request. Rule 2 gives greater weight to reliable records than to vague accounts. Rule 37 recognizes that specific promises about what is being sold matter, and Rule 6 requires a remedy to match proven harm. Submissions of the parties 4. Nalin submits that accepting a display item did not mean accepting a cooker without the bowl needed to cook. Nalin points to the receipt wording, “display item — no returns,” which does not identify the missing bowl, and to the same-evening complaint. Nalin asks for THB 1,290 back in exchange for returning the cooker. Nalin expressly accepts that the LINE exchange does not prove what was said before payment and reports having no separate pre-purchase record. 5. Preecha submits that Nalin was told before the sale that a separate bowl was needed. Preecha also relies on the receipt’s display-item and no-returns wording. The submissions do not provide details of the alleged warning or a record of the conversation. One defendant submission is unclear and does not add a specific factual account of the sale. Evidence and findings 6. The LINE exchange is presented as a saved message dated the evening of purchase. Nalin’s message says, “There is no inner bowl. I cannot cook with this. Please refund me.” Preecha replies, “It was the discounted display one. The receipt says no returns.” I accept this exhibit as evidence that Nalin raised the missing bowl promptly and that Preecha’s recorded reply invoked the discount and receipt wording. Its weight is moderate: it is a contemporaneous written exchange, but the record does not independently establish its authenticity beyond its presentation, and it does not record the pre-sale conversation. 7. The exchange’s silence about an earlier warning is relevant but limited. Preecha’s reply could have mentioned such a warning, yet the fact that it did not is not proof that no warning occurred. Likewise, the receipt wording supports Nalin’s point that the written receipt did not specifically identify the missing bowl, but it does not establish that no verbal disclosure was made. The parties’ conflicting accounts remain unresolved on the available evidence. 8. Nalin’s request for THB 1,290 in exchange for return is consistent across the submissions. The record supports the amount claimed and the proposed return-for-refund arrangement. It does not independently establish that Nalin is entitled to that refund. Reasons 9. On the first issue, Nalin bears the burden. Nalin has provided meaningful support: a prompt complaint, a receipt that does not specifically state that the bowl is missing, and a reply that refers to the discount and no-returns wording rather than an earlier warning. These facts make Nalin’s account plausible and show that the missing bowl was important to Nalin. They do not, however, establish what was said before payment. 10. Preecha’s assertion that Nalin was told is also unsupported by a contemporaneous record or specific details. The court does not treat that assertion as proven merely because it was made. But Nalin must prove the basis for the requested relief; Preecha need not disprove it. With the only written exchange occurring after purchase and the receipt addressing display status and returns rather than the pre-sale conversation, the evidence does not resolve the central conflict. Under Rule 1, the burden therefore remains unmet. The finding is not that Preecha has proven a warning occurred, but that Nalin has not proven that it did not. 11. Rule 37 supports attention to specific promises about the product, but the record does not establish a particular promise that the cooker included an inner bowl or that the bowl’s absence was concealed. The prompt complaint and the receipt’s wording are relevant, but they cannot substitute for proof of the disputed pre-sale disclosure. The first issue is not proven. 12. On the second issue, the requested remedy is narrow and practical: refund the stated price upon return of the cooker. That arrangement would avoid Nalin keeping both the cooker and the purchase price. But Rule 6 requires a remedy to correspond to proven harm, and Rule 1 requires proof supporting entitlement. Because the factual basis for the claim remains unproven, the court cannot order the refund. The second issue is also not proven. Final order 13. The plaintiff’s claim for a refund of THB 1,290 is denied. No payment is ordered from either party to the other, and no return of the cooker is ordered under this judgment. This decision reflects the limits of the available record: it does not find that Preecha proved a pre-sale warning, only that Nalin did not prove the absence of one as required to obtain the requested relief.