Original in-game verdict

Background 1. Elina Salonen, the plaintiff, seeks €400 from Oskari Salonen, the defendant, for household furniture. Elina says the parties signed an agreement requiring Oskari to pay €600 and that he paid only €200. Oskari relies on a later exchange in which Elina offered to accept €200 if he brought all her boxes over that weekend. He says the boxes were delivered and that he believed the €200 settled the furniture payment. 2. The record includes the signed agreement, the complete message exchange, and a bank confirmation of the €200 transfer. Both parties have had an opportunity to address whether the boxes were delivered. Oskari says he has no further evidence of delivery, and Elina likewise says she has no further evidence about what happened to the boxes. No supplied law states a different rule for deciding these issues, so the court decides them from the evidence and the burdens identified in the hearing. Issues for determination 3. The issues are whether Elina has established an unpaid balance under the signed agreement, and whether Oskari has established that the later conditional reduction took effect. Elina bears the burden of establishing the original payment obligation and unpaid balance. Oskari bears the burden of establishing the later reduction on which he relies. Submissions of the parties 4. Elina argues that the signed agreement required €600 and that the €200 transfer reduced the debt only by that amount. She says her later offer was conditional on delivery of all the boxes, and the record does not confirm delivery. She asks for the remaining €400 and no additional compensation. 5. Oskari argues that the messages changed the amount to €200 and that he paid in good faith believing the payment was final. He says all the boxes were delivered. In his final submission, he also argues that Elina cannot prove they were not delivered and that the messages amended the original agreement. He offers no further evidence of delivery. Evidence and findings 6. The signed household-property agreement states that Oskari keeps the sofa and dining furniture and will pay Elina €600 by 15 April. It contains no reduced-payment term. The court accepts this presented document as strong evidence of the original obligation. The bank confirmation records a €200 transfer from Oskari to Elina on 12 April. It establishes payment of €200, leaving €400 unpaid unless a later change is established. 7. The complete messages show Elina writing, “If you bring all my boxes over this weekend, I can accept €200 for the furniture and leave it there.” Oskari replies, “I can send the €200 tomorrow. Will sort the boxes.” The exchange establishes that Elina proposed a conditional reduction. It does not record a confirmation that all the boxes were delivered. Oskari’s statement that delivery occurred is an attributed account, not independent confirmation. The record contains no further evidence of delivery. 8. The transfer reference says “Furniture — agreed final payment.” The bank record reliably proves the transfer and its date. But the reference was entered by Oskari alone. It supports his account of what he believed or intended; it does not establish Elina’s acceptance of an unconditional reduction or prove that the delivery condition was met. Reasons 9. Elina has established the original obligation and the unpaid balance. The signed agreement is direct evidence of the €600 promise, and the bank confirmation establishes that only €200 was transferred. Elina’s claim is limited to the remaining €400. Her inability to prove that the boxes were not delivered does not defeat this showing; she is not required to disprove a condition that Oskari relies on to reduce the established obligation. 10. The messages do not support Oskari’s argument that the amount was changed to €200 without qualification. Elina’s wording expressly ties acceptance of €200 to bringing all her boxes over that weekend. Oskari’s reply says he would “sort the boxes,” but it does not itself confirm that he accepted and fulfilled the condition. Even if the exchange is treated as a proposed later change, the record still does not establish that the stated condition occurred. 11. The court has considered Oskari’s account that the boxes were delivered and his good-faith belief that the payment settled the furniture amount. Those points are relevant, but they do not carry the burden of proving the condition. The transfer reference is Oskari’s own wording, and the messages do not confirm delivery. Oskari’s final argument that Elina cannot prove non-delivery places the burden on the wrong party. The issue is not whether Elina disproved delivery; it is whether Oskari established delivery as the condition for the reduction. He did not. 12. The court therefore finds the original €600 obligation established and the conditional reduction not proven. The €200 payment must be credited, leaving €400 due. No additional compensation is sought or supported by this record. The court makes no finding that the boxes were not delivered; it finds only that delivery has not been established for purposes of the claimed reduction. Final order 13. Judgment is entered for the plaintiff, Elina Salonen, against the defendant, Oskari Salonen, in the amount of €400. Oskari must pay Elina €400. The claim is granted to that extent, and no additional compensation is awarded. This order reflects the established €600 agreement, the proven €200 payment, and the failure to establish that the condition for reducing the balance was fulfilled.