Original in-game verdict

Background 1. Nandi Cele brings this consumer dispute against Warren Jacobs concerning a paid washing-machine repair. She asks for repayment of R950 and additional compensation for worry and legal fees. Warren asks that the claims be denied or limited to what the evidence proves. 2. The hearing record includes a paid invoice supplied by Warren. It describes “Repair washing-machine leak — inlet hose replaced” and records R950 as paid. The invoice does not state how long the machine was tested and does not expressly limit the job to replacing the hose alone. Issues for determination 3. The issues are whether Nandi proved that the agreed repair was unsuccessful; whether Warren had a fair chance to inspect or correct the problem; and whether Nandi proved any entitlement to relief beyond the R950 payment. 4. Under the supplied burden-of-proof rule, the party seeking relief must point to facts, records, or testimony supporting it. The supplied consumer-promises rule requires a service provider to honor specific promises about quality and deliverables. The repair-opportunity rule permits consideration of whether the provider had a fair chance to address a reported problem. The remedy must be supported and proportionate to proven harm. Submissions of the parties 5. Nandi says the repair was incomplete and that water appeared underneath the machine the next day. She says WhatsApp messages recorded both a next-morning leak report and a free inspection offer. She also seeks compensation for worry and legal fees, and refers generally to invoices or receipts. 6. Warren says the invoice records the paid repair and inlet-hose replacement, but does not prove the repair failed or establish the cause of any later water. He initially said he offered a free inspection that Nandi declined. He acknowledged that he has no independent proof of that exchange and does not ask the court to treat the offer or refusal as independently established. He opposes the additional amounts as unsupported. Evidence and findings 7. The invoice is a presented exhibit, not merely an allegation. It is useful evidence that Nandi paid R950 and that the work was described as repairing a washing-machine leak by replacing the inlet hose. Its wording is broader than a statement that only a hose was replaced, but it does not record testing or guarantee a particular result. The invoice therefore proves the payment and recorded work, not by itself whether the repair succeeded. 8. Nandi’s statement that water appeared underneath the machine the next day is an attributed account of a direct observation. It is relevant and is not contradicted by a presented photograph or other record. However, the WhatsApp messages she describes were not presented. Their contents, timing, and context cannot be verified, and the record does not identify the cause of the water or establish that the replaced hose or other agreed work was defective. 9. The inspection offer and alleged refusal are disputed accounts without independent support. The court finds neither established. The absence of proof of a refusal means Warren cannot rely on that alleged refusal as a proven reason to deny relief. It does not, however, prove that the repair failed. 10. No specific amount or supporting record for worry or legal fees was presented. The general reference to invoices or receipts does not identify a particular expense or establish its amount. Reasons 11. Nandi bears the burden of proving that the agreed repair was not successfully completed and that the requested refund is justified. The invoice supports her payment and the broad description of the service. Her account that water appeared again the next day provides some support for her concern that the problem continued. But the messages that might have corroborated a prompt report were not produced, and no other evidence connects the later water to a failure in the agreed repair. The court cannot infer from the timing alone that Warren failed to perform the promised work. 12. Warren’s position is not established merely because the invoice records hose replacement. The invoice does not show testing, and its wording does not expressly confine the job to that component. Nevertheless, the burden remains with Nandi to prove the failure for which she seeks repayment. On the available record, the evidence does not establish that the repair was unsuccessful. The claim for return of R950 is therefore not proven. 13. The court has considered the repair-opportunity issue separately. The supplied rule makes a fair chance to inspect or correct a problem relevant, but the record does not establish whether an offer was made or declined. The court does not treat Warren’s account of a refusal as fact and does not use it against Nandi. This unresolved exchange does not fill the separate evidentiary gap about whether the repair failed. 14. The additional claims also fail for lack of proof. Nandi has not identified a particular legal expense, a specific amount, or evidence of a separate loss caused by the repair. Under the burden-of-proof and proportional-remedy rules, the court cannot award an amount based only on a general request for compensation. Final order 15. The plaintiff’s claim for repayment of R950 is denied because the available evidence does not prove that the agreed repair was unsuccessful. The court makes no finding that the alleged inspection offer or refusal occurred. 16. The plaintiff’s requests for compensation for worry and legal fees are denied because no specific loss or amount was established. No payment is ordered from either party to the other. This judgment is limited to the evidence presented in this hearing; it does not determine what the unproduced messages might have shown.