Original in-game verdict

Background 1. Nina Mercer seeks return of a $240 deposit paid to Owen Bell for work on a dining table. The parties signed a work order stating that the table would be ready by Saturday, June 13, 2026, at noon, and that the customer could cancel for a deposit refund if it was not ready by then. Nina asks only for the deposit, not additional damages. 2. The parties also exchanged messages on Friday. Owen asked whether Nina could collect the table Sunday at noon instead. Nina replied, “Sunday could work.” Owen says this changed the deadline; Nina says her willingness to consider Sunday was conditional and did not give up the written refund right. The screenshot is acknowledged by both parties but ends immediately after Nina’s reply. Issues for determination 3. The first issue is whether Nina proved that the table was not ready by Saturday at noon, triggering the refund term. Nina bears the burden of proving the facts supporting her requested relief under Rule 1, the Claim Needs Proof. 4. The second issue is whether Owen proved that Nina agreed to replace or extend the written deadline. Owen bears the burden on his assertion that the written arrangement changed. Rule 21, Contract Terms Control First, directs the court to begin with the signed work order. Rule 2, Reliable Records Beat Vague Stories, guides the weight given to the acknowledged text and the parties’ accounts. Submissions of the parties 5. Nina argues that the signed work order controls and that “Sunday could work” was not a clear surrender of her right to cancel and receive the deposit if the table was not ready Saturday. She acknowledges that she has no message proving her account that Sunday depended on Friday confirmation. She also acknowledges she has no new independent information about whether the table was ready by Saturday noon. 6. Owen argues that Nina agreed to an extra day and points to his records. The screenshot now presented shows his request for Sunday pickup and Nina’s reply. Owen also asks why Nina did not cancel Saturday if she wanted the table only then. That question is an argument, not proof of the table’s readiness or of the full terms of any change. Evidence and findings 7. The signed work order is presented in exhibit-3-e1. It states a $480 total price, acknowledges a $240 deposit, sets a Saturday-noon deadline, and allows cancellation for a deposit refund if the table is not ready. The parties’ submissions do not dispute that they signed it or that Nina paid the deposit. The court finds those terms established. 8. Exhibit-8-e2, also presented as exhibit-9-e2, is a cropped screenshot of the Friday exchange. Both parties acknowledge sending the messages. The screenshot reliably establishes Owen’s request for Sunday pickup and Nina’s response, “Sunday could work.” Because it ends there, it does not establish any further confirmation, conditions, or express waiver of the written refund term. 9. Nina says the table was not completed, but no presented record or detailed account establishes whether it was ready by Saturday noon. Owen likewise provides no evidence of readiness. The court does not treat either party’s assertion as proof of that fact. Nina’s final submission confirms that she has no new information on readiness. The record therefore leaves that question unresolved as a matter of fact. Reasons 10. On the first issue, the written refund promise is conditional: Nina may cancel for a deposit refund if the table was not ready by the stated deadline. The signed document proves the condition and the amount of the deposit, but it does not prove that the condition occurred. Nina bears the burden of showing that the table was not ready by Saturday noon. Her assertion that it was not completed is unsupported by a presented record or sufficiently specific evidence establishing its status at the deadline. Owen’s lack of proof that it was ready does not shift Nina’s burden. The issue is not proven, and the refund claim fails on this record. 11. On the second issue, the acknowledged screenshot is stronger than an unsupported recollection as to the words actually exchanged. It shows Nina agreeing that Sunday “could work” in response to a request for Sunday pickup. The court finds that Owen has proved Nina accepted Sunday as a workable pickup time. The screenshot is cropped, however, and does not show that Nina expressly agreed to replace every term of the written work order or waive the refund right. Nina’s conditional explanation is also uncorroborated. The court therefore finds a Sunday pickup arrangement established, but does not find an express waiver of the written refund term. This limited finding does not change the result: Nina still has not proved that the refund condition occurred. 12. Owen’s question about why Nina did not cancel Saturday may make her position less persuasive, but it does not establish whether the table was ready or what the parties intended beyond the words shown. The court does not rely on that question as proof. Nor does the court treat the cropped screenshot as conclusive beyond what it visibly and reliably shows. Final order 13. Judgment is entered for defendant Owen Bell. Plaintiff Nina Mercer’s claim for return of the $240 deposit is denied because she did not prove that the table was not ready by Saturday noon, the condition required by the signed work order for that refund. No payment is ordered from either party to the other. This judgment resolves only the claim and evidence presented; it does not find that the table was ready, only that the required fact for Nina’s requested refund was not proven.