Bristol county court denies mower return and £140 claim over unresolved loan-or-gift dispute

The county court serving Bristol denied Ruth Ellison’s request for the return of a lawnmower held by Callum Price, or £140 if it could not be returned. It ordered neither delivery of the mower nor payment, finding that Ellison had not proved a better right to possess it.

The dispute turned on whether permission to keep a borrowed mower had become a gift. The outcome did not establish that Price owned it: the court found that the evidence left the later agreement unresolved, and that Ellison had not proved her entitlement to the relief sought.

An accepted receipt showed that Ellison bought the mower for £140 eight months before handing it to Price. That established her original ownership, but could not answer whether she subsequently gave it away. Repeated entries for the receipt concerned the same purchase, not additional independent evidence.

The missing messages were central. Although Price referred to a screenshot, the formal judgment recorded that neither it nor the surrounding conversation was among the exhibits. The court could not verify its wording, authenticity or context, and treated it as evidence for neither side.

Ellison’s explanation that she intended temporary permission was plausible. Price’s understanding that she no longer wanted the mower was also possible, but his belief alone did not prove a gift. With neither account resolving the ambiguity, the burden remained on Ellison as the person seeking recovery.

The £140 alternative failed too. The receipt established a historical purchase price, not the mower’s present value, and the record did not establish whether it could be returned. More fundamentally, Ellison had not proved a right to recover either the mower or its value.

Ellison said she lent Price the mower while she needed storage and allowed him to keep and use it temporarily. She relied on the timing words in her reply and on Price’s statement that she could tell him when she needed it back.

She acknowledged that her wording could have been clearer, that the receipt could not exclude a later gift, and that she had no separate record confirming the surrounding conversation.

Price’s representative argued that Ellison’s words were conflicting and that Price believed she no longer wanted the mower. The defence referred to a screenshot said to approve temporary keeping, while acknowledging that contextual messages were omitted, and asked for the claim to be dismissed.

The account supplied to the court began with a loan. Price asked to keep the mower until Ellison arranged a shed; her response allowed him to keep it for the time being. The exact dates of the mower-related messages were not recalled.

The court decided the dispute on the available hearing record, with no further obtainable proof identified and no adjournment permitted. Its decision leaves the alleged gift unproved rather than confirmed: evidence of an original purchase did not resolve the contested later exchange.