Portland small claims court denies $600 refund claim over table due Saturday

A small claims court in Portland, Oregon, denied Nina Calder’s claim for a $600 refund from Evan Bell over a custom table she said was due on Saturday. The court entered judgment for Bell and awarded no money to either party on the claim.

The dispute turned on two separate questions: whether the agreement promised a refund if the table was not ready on time, and whether Calder later agreed to give Bell another week. The court found that neither proposition had been proven.

A receipt established that Calder paid $600, but it did not say what would happen if the table missed the deadline. Calder consistently described a signed agreement containing a refund condition, the court said, but the contract itself was not presented and its exact wording was not in the record.

Because Calder sought the refund, she had to prove the contractual term supporting it. Her account alone did not allow the court to verify the alleged written condition.

Bell relied on a screenshot showing that he asked for another week and Calder replied “Okay.” The court accepted that the exchange was consistent with his understanding, but said the response did not clearly establish that she agreed to change the Saturday deadline.

Bell’s failure to prove an extension did not fill the separate gap in Calder’s claim: it did not establish that the original agreement contained the refund term she alleged.

Calder maintained that the signed agreement entitled her to the full payment back if the table was not finished by Saturday. She said she understood Bell’s notice that the work would be late but had not given up her right to a refund.

Bell asked the court to deny or reduce the claim. He said he understood Calder’s response as acceptance of another week and remained willing to finish the table, while acknowledging that the message did not clearly prove an extension and that he had no further proof of one.

Saturday was the planned pickup day for the table intended for Calder’s Portland apartment. A Friday message thread recorded her refund request and Bell’s understanding that she had given him another week.

Calder did not know when, or whether, Bell finished the table. The judgment resolved only her refund claim on the available record; it did not find that she agreed to extend the deadline.