Original in-game verdict

Background 1. Janice Leung seeks return of the withheld portion of a HK$1,200 payment made to Kelvin Yip for 80 invitations. The submissions describe a total price of HK$2,400 and an order slip listing Saturday-noon collection. The precise amount Janice asks the Tribunal to order returned is not stated in the hearing record. 2. Kelvin disputes that Saturday noon was unconditional. He relies on a Thursday WhatsApp exchange in which he asked Janice to approve by 6 p.m. so he could have the invitations ready by Saturday noon. Janice replied that she would check after work. The excerpt shows no approval that evening. Kelvin acknowledges that he cannot identify or document any deposit deduction. Issues for determination 3. The issues are whether Janice proved that Saturday noon was an unconditional contractual deadline, and whether the record proves a justified deposit deduction and a specific amount that can be returned. 4. Under Rule 1, the party seeking relief must support it with specific facts, records, or testimony. Rule 21 directs the Tribunal to begin with the agreement’s terms. Rule 23 makes a condition relevant where a duty depends on it. Rule 2 gives greater weight to reliable records than to unsupported descriptions. Under Rule 6, any remedy must match the proven harm and amount. Submissions of the parties 5. Janice submits that the order slip records Saturday-noon collection and that she paid HK$1,200 toward the HK$2,400 price. She asks for return of the withheld portion. Her submissions refer to the order slip and messages, but the order slip itself is not presented as an exhibit. 6. Kelvin submits that the Thursday message tied Saturday-noon readiness to approval by 6 p.m. He argues that the excerpt contains no approval that evening and that Janice’s Friday question suggests timing was uncertain. He also fairly concedes that the message does not establish a replacement deadline, that Janice agreed to one, or that any deposit deduction was justified. He asks the Tribunal to deny or reduce the refund, but identifies no amount that should be retained. Evidence and findings 7. The Thursday WhatsApp exchange is presented twice in the record as exhibit-2-e2 and exhibit-8-e2. These are duplicate descriptions of the same exchange, not independent corroboration. The exhibit is relevant and moderately reliable for what the excerpt shows: Kelvin requested approval by 6 p.m. for Saturday-noon readiness, Janice said she would check after work, and no approval appears in the excerpt. Its limits matter: it does not state what would happen if approval came later, and the excerpt alone does not prove that no approval occurred outside it. 8. Janice’s repeated descriptions of the order slip are submissions, not the slip itself. They consistently say it lists Saturday noon, 80 invitations, a HK$2,400 total, and a HK$1,200 FPS payment. Those descriptions support that such terms are alleged and are not contradicted on the record, but the Tribunal cannot inspect the document or determine whether the collection time was conditional. The record does not establish a replacement deadline either. 9. Kelvin’s statement that he cannot identify any deduction is an attributed account, not a produced accounting record. It is nevertheless a clear concession about the proof he has available. No itemized deduction, receipt, cost document, or amount retained is presented. The record also does not state the precise amount Janice seeks back. Reasons 10. On the deadline issue, Janice bears the burden of proving the contractual term on which her claim depends. Her consistent description of the order slip supports her position that Saturday noon appeared on it. But the actual slip is unavailable in the presented record, and the Thursday message supplies relevant context: readiness by Saturday noon was linked to approval by 6 p.m. The message does not resolve whether the order slip made the time unconditional or what followed from late approval. Janice therefore has not proven that Saturday noon was an unconditional promise. This finding does not establish Kelvin’s proposed interpretation as the agreed term; he admits the record does not show Janice accepted a later deadline. Under Rules 21 and 23, the uncertainty remains material, and the burden on Janice is not met. 11. On the deposit issue, Kelvin has not proved that any particular deduction was justified. His timing evidence concerns approval and collection, not charges or costs. His express inability to identify or document deductions leaves no supported basis for retaining a specified amount. That does not, however, establish the amount of Janice’s claim. The record says only that she seeks the withheld portion of HK$1,200; it does not say how much was withheld or how much she asks the Tribunal to award. Rule 1 requires proof supporting the relief requested, and Rule 6 does not permit the Tribunal to select an amount without evidence. The Tribunal cannot order a refund of an unknown sum. 12. The result is not a finding that Kelvin was entitled to keep any deposit, nor a finding that a deduction was proper. It is a denial of the claim because the record does not establish a calculable amount for judgment. The parties were given a final opportunity to close, and both acknowledged that no further proof is available. An adjournment is not permitted and would not cure the stated gap on this record. Final order 13. Janice Leung’s claim for return of the withheld portion of the HK$1,200 payment is denied because the amount sought is not established. No monetary award is made, and neither party is ordered to pay the other under this judgment. 14. The Tribunal makes no finding that Kelvin Yip proved a valid deduction or was entitled to retain any particular amount. The denial rests on Janice’s failure to prove a specific, calculable refund amount, together with the unresolved contractual deadline evidence. No additional relief is granted.