Madison small claims court denies $120 shelf-kit refund over unproven return condition

The small claims court in Madison denied Erin Schultz’s request for a $120 refund from Alder Finch Home Goods LLC, holding that she had not proved the returned shelf kit contained all parts as required by the store’s written policy.

Judgment was entered for Alder Finch, with no payment ordered. The court expressly distinguished Schultz’s failure to prove entitlement to a refund from proof of the retailer’s allegation: it did not find that Alder Finch had established that mounting hardware was missing when she handed over the box.

The receipt and printed return policy established a $120 purchase, a 14-day return period and a requirement that all parts be included for a refund. Both parties accepted that Schultz returned the box six days after purchase. The court found the return timely, but held that meeting the deadline did not establish compliance with the separate all-parts condition.

Applying the recorded Rule 1, the court placed the burden of proof—the obligation to support the request with specific facts, records or testimony—on Schultz. Rule 2 favored reliable records over vague accounts, while Rule 37 required enforcement of the seller’s specific consumer promise, including its stated condition.

Schultz acknowledged that she had not checked the hardware and could not say anyone else checked it at handoff. Her statements established the limits of her knowledge, not that the kit was complete. Repeated copies of the receipt and policy were not treated as separate corroboration.

The retailer’s evidence also left a gap. Its assertion that the product normally included mounting hardware did not establish the contents of this particular box. Its explanation that returns were not normally photographed explained the absence of a photograph but did not prove missing parts.

The court declined to infer either completeness or incompleteness from the absence of photographs. It also declined an adjournment, recording that the hearing had reached closing, adjournment was not allowed and Schultz had no further evidence to resolve the uncertainty.

“The result follows from Erin’s burden, not from a finding that Alder Finch’s account is established,” the court stated.

Schultz argued that the store’s later report of missing hardware did not show what was in the box when she returned it. She pointed out that Colin Reed had not handled the return and that there was no arrival photograph or identified witness confirming the contents. She maintained her refund request while acknowledging that she had no independent proof of completeness.

Alder Finch relied on the all-parts requirement and submitted that the kit normally came with a mounting hardware bag. It said hardware was missing and that returns were not normally photographed. The court found that these submissions identified neither a direct observer nor a record documenting the contents at handoff.

Three days after the return, Reed emailed Schultz reporting that a stockroom check had found no hardware bag and describing the kit as incomplete. Reed learned of the missing hardware afterward; he had not received Schultz’s return. The email did not identify who checked the box or when.

The dispute concerned only the $120 refund, with no proof of additional losses or another remedy. The outcome enforces the written refund condition on this record, but leaves unresolved whether the hardware was actually present when Schultz returned the kit.