Original in-game verdict

Background 1. Erin Schultz asks for a $120 refund from Alder Finch Home Goods LLC for a shelf kit she returned. The parties agree that Erin returned the box six days after purchase. The receipt records a $120 purchase, and the printed policy allows returns within 14 days but requires all parts to be included for a refund. 2. The dispute is limited to whether the kit met that all-parts condition when Erin handed the box to the store. The record contains no proof of additional claimed losses or a different remedy. Erin’s final statement continues to request the $120 refund while acknowledging that the record does not establish the required condition. Issues for determination 3. The sole material issue is whether Erin proved that all parts were included in the returned kit at handoff. Under Rule 1, the party asking for relief must point to specific facts, records, or testimony supporting the request. Erin therefore bears the burden of proving the condition necessary for the refund. Rule 2 favors reliable records over vague accounts, and Rule 37 requires a seller to honor specific consumer promises. Those rules require applying the written policy as shown, not assuming either that the kit was complete or that it was incomplete. Submissions of the parties 4. Erin argues that the store’s later report of missing hardware does not show what was in the box when she returned it. She says Colin Reed did not handle the return, and the store has no arrival photo or identified witness confirming the contents. Erin also candidly states that she did not check the hardware and has no independent proof that the kit was complete. She asks for the refund but recognizes that the evidence leaves the condition uncertain. 5. Alder Finch says hardware was missing during the return and that the product normally comes with a bag of mounting hardware. It relies on the policy and explains that the store does not normally photograph returns. It also argues that Erin has no photo evidence. The store’s submissions do not identify a person who directly observed the box being opened or provide a record documenting its contents at handoff. Evidence and findings 6. The receipt and policy exhibit, presented as exhibits 3, 5, and 7, is the strongest documentary evidence. The repeated copies state the same facts and are not separate corroboration: a $120 purchase, a 14-day return period, and the requirement that all parts be included. Both sides accept that the return occurred six days after purchase. I find the purchase and timely return established, but those facts alone do not establish compliance with the all-parts condition. 7. Erin’s statements are direct and consistent about her own knowledge: she did not check the hardware and cannot say that anyone else checked it at handoff. Her account is useful evidence of what she did and did not observe, but it does not establish that the hardware was present. Her final statement expressly acknowledges that she has no independent proof of completeness. 8. Alder Finch’s statements assert that parts were missing and that the kit normally includes mounting hardware. The latter supports that hardware was ordinarily part of the product, but neither statement establishes what was in this particular box at handoff. The store’s explanation that returns are not normally photographed explains the absence of a photo; it does not prove the contents. Nor does the absence of a photo from Erin prove that the kit was incomplete. The record does not include a direct observer or contemporaneous record of the contents. I therefore do not find that the store proved its allegation that hardware was missing at handoff. Reasons 9. The written policy makes inclusion of all parts a condition of a refund. Rule 37 supports enforcing that specific promise, including its stated condition. The timely return satisfies the deadline but does not satisfy or replace the separate all-parts requirement. Erin’s claim depends on showing that requirement was met. 10. The evidence leaves the contents at handoff uncertain. That uncertainty is not resolved by treating the store’s allegation as true: the store has not supplied direct observation or a reliable record establishing missing hardware at that time. But the burden belongs to Erin, not Alder Finch. Rule 1 requires the party seeking relief to support the claim with specific proof. Erin’s own account confirms that she did not check, and she identifies no other proof that the kit was complete. The receipt proves the purchase and timing, not the contents. 11. Erin’s argument about the weakness of the store’s evidence is fair, but it does not fill the gap in her own proof. The court cannot infer completeness merely because the store did not photograph the return, and cannot infer incompleteness merely because Erin did not photograph it. On this record, the required condition is not proven. Under Rule 2, the written receipt and policy reliably establish their stated terms, while the parties’ unsupported assertions about the box’s contents carry limited weight. The result follows from Erin’s burden, not from a finding that Alder Finch’s account is established. 12. No adjournment is warranted. The hearing is at closing, adjournment is not allowed, and Erin has stated that she has no further evidence to resolve the uncertainty. The court must decide on the available record rather than presume that repeating the inquiry would produce proof. Final order 13. Judgment is entered for Alder Finch Home Goods LLC on Erin Schultz’s request for a $120 refund. Erin’s claim is denied, and no payment is ordered. This judgment does not find that Alder Finch proved hardware was missing; it reflects only that Erin did not prove the all-parts condition required by the written refund policy.