Original in-game verdict

Background 1. Renato Cabigas, the plaintiff, seeks PHP 4,000 from Liza Dacalos, the defendant, as the unpaid balance for 100 menus. The record describes an agreed price of PHP 8,000 and a PHP 4,000 deposit. Renato seeks no additional damages. Liza acknowledges that the balance remains unpaid but asks the court to consider reducing it because she had asked for delivery before her café opened at 9 a.m. 2. The hearing record includes a readable copy of the accepted quotation and deposit entry, a screenshot of a message exchange, and accounts relayed through counsel. The parties have had a final opportunity to state their positions. No further obtainable proof is identified, and adjournment is not available. Issues for determination 3. The issues are: (a) what delivery terms the parties agreed to; and (b) whether Renato has shown that the remaining PHP 4,000 is due in full. Under Rule 1, the party seeking relief must support the request with specific facts, records, or testimony. Rules 2 and 18 favor reliable business records in determining the deal. Rules 4 and 6 require a fair basis for withholding money and a remedy proportionate to proven harm. Submissions of the parties 4. Renato argues that the accepted quotation required delivery on Friday without specifying an hour. He says Liza’s message was a request, and his reply, “Noted,” acknowledged it without agreeing to change the deal. Renato’s relayed account says he delivered Friday afternoon. He asks for the unpaid PHP 4,000 only. 5. Liza argues that she told Renato the café opened at 9 and asked him to bring the menus early. She says the message shows advance notice of her concern. She accepts that the quotation says Friday, that “Noted” does not clearly promise delivery before 9, and that she has no further proof of the actual arrival time or a specific loss. She seeks no additional damages and cannot support a particular deduction with evidence. Evidence and findings 6. The accepted quotation and deposit entry, exhibit-7-e1, are a readable copy accepted by both parties. They list 100 menus for PHP 8,000, a PHP 4,000 deposit marked received, and “Delivery: Friday.” No hour appears. This is the strongest evidence of the agreed price, payment, and delivery term. It establishes that PHP 4,000 remains unpaid if the order was performed, but does not by itself prove delivery. 7. The screenshot, exhibits 2, 4, 6, and 8, shows Liza writing, “We open Friday at 9. Please bring the menus early,” and Renato replying, “Noted.” The repeated exhibit entries describe the same exchange, not separate corroborating messages. The screenshot supports that Liza raised the timing concern before Friday and that Renato acknowledged receiving it. Its wording does not show that Renato accepted a before-9 deadline. 8. Renato’s relayed client account, exhibit-7-client-statement:3, says he delivered Friday afternoon. This is an attributed account, not an independently verified delivery record or admitted witness testimony. It supports Renato’s position but leaves uncertainty about the precise delivery time. Liza’s final account, statement-8, confirms that she has no further proof of arrival time or loss. Neither the screenshot nor the quotation resolves the actual arrival time. Reasons 9. On the first issue, the plaintiff has established the agreed delivery term as Friday without a specified hour. The accepted quotation is direct, readable business evidence of that term. The screenshot does not contradict it: a request to bring the menus early is not, by itself, proof that both parties changed the written term. Renato’s “Noted” is ambiguous as to whether he understood the importance of the request, but it is not a clear promise to deliver before 9. Liza expressly accepts that it does not prove such a promise. Under Rule 18, the business record defines the deal; under Rule 1, the party asserting an additional term must support it. No before-9 term is established. 10. On the balance, the plaintiff has established the amount and the unpaid status through the accepted quotation and deposit entry, and Liza acknowledges the balance remains unpaid. The remaining question is whether the record supports withholding some or all of it because of delivery performance. Renato’s relayed account says delivery occurred Friday afternoon, but the court does not treat that account as independently verified. The exact arrival time therefore remains uncertain. That uncertainty does not establish that delivery occurred after the agreed Friday deadline: the record contains no evidence that the menus were delivered on another day or not delivered at all. Nor does it establish a breach of a before-9 term, which was not part of the proven agreement. 11. Liza’s advance notice matters: it shows her concern was communicated before delivery, not invented afterward. But notice of a preference is not proof of a contractual change or of late performance. Liza candidly acknowledges that she cannot prove the actual arrival time or a specific loss. Under Rule 4, advance notice is relevant to fairness, but it does not alone justify withholding payment. Under Rule 6, a reduction must match proven harm; no amount of harm or basis for a deduction is established. The court does not require Liza to disprove Renato’s claim. Rather, the plaintiff has shown the agreed price, deposit, and unpaid balance, while the record supplies no proven failure that would defeat or reduce payment. 12. The court therefore finds the balance due. This conclusion is limited to the evidence and claim presented: it does not find that Renato delivered at a particular hour, and it does not treat the relayed account as a verified delivery record. It finds that the accepted deal required Friday delivery without a specified hour and that Liza has not established a basis to reduce the unpaid balance. Final order 13. Judgment is entered for the plaintiff, Renato Cabigas, and against the defendant, Liza Dacalos, for PHP 4,000. Liza shall pay Renato PHP 4,000. Renato’s claim for that balance is granted in full. No additional damages are awarded or sought. No other relief is granted.