Original in-game verdict

Background 1. Nina Calder seeks a $600 refund from Evan Bell for a custom table. Nina says their signed agreement required Evan to refund the full payment if the table was not finished by Saturday. Evan asks the court to deny or reduce the refund, arguing that Nina’s message response showed she accepted another week for completion. 2. The record includes a receipt and a screenshot excerpt. The receipt shows a $600 payment. The screenshot shows Evan asking for another week and Nina replying “Okay.” The signed contract itself was not presented. Nina repeatedly said it was available, but the record contains no copy or exact quoted wording from it. Issues for determination 3. The first issue is whether Nina proved that the agreement required a $600 refund if Evan missed Saturday’s deadline. Nina bears the burden of proving the contract term supporting her requested relief. The relevant supplied rules are Rule 21, Contract Terms Control First, and Rule 1, The Claim Needs Proof. 4. The second issue is whether Evan proved that Nina agreed to extend the deadline. Evan relies on that asserted change to resist the refund request, so he bears the burden of establishing it. The court considers Rule 21 and Rule 2, Reliable Records Beat Vague Stories. Submissions of the parties 5. Nina’s position is that the signed contract required a full refund if Evan did not finish the table by Saturday. She says the contract is available and that Evan has refused to pay the promised refund. In closing, she continued to seek $600. Her submissions also included accusations and insults, but those do not establish the contract term or change the evidence. 6. Evan’s position is that he asked for another week and understood Nina’s “Okay” as agreement. He says he remains willing to finish the table under the later deadline and asks the court to deny or reduce the refund. He acknowledges that the message does not clearly establish an extension and that no further proof is available. Evidence and findings 7. The receipt and message excerpt are presented as exhibit-2-e2 and repeated in later exhibit entries. The receipt supports a finding that Nina paid $600. The screenshot supports a finding that Evan requested another week and Nina replied “Okay.” The screenshot is relevant, but its meaning is disputed; it does not automatically prove the interpretation either party urges. 8. Nina’s statements are attributed accounts, not the contract itself. Her description of the refund condition is consistent across the record, but the court cannot inspect the alleged signed agreement or verify its exact words. The receipt does not state a refund condition. The court therefore finds that payment is established, but the alleged contractual refund term is not proven on this record. 9. The screenshot is consistent with Evan believing Nina accepted more time. But “Okay,” without more context, does not clearly establish that Nina agreed to change the Saturday deadline. Nina disputes that meaning, and Evan identifies no other message or record confirming an extension. The court finds that Evan has not proven a deadline change. Reasons 10. Rule 21 directs the court to start with the agreement’s words when a contract addresses the dispute. That makes the alleged written refund condition central. Rule 1 requires the party seeking relief to support the claim with specific facts, records, or testimony. Nina has given a consistent description of the term, but the contract was not presented even though she said it was available. The court cannot treat the description as the contract’s verified wording. The receipt proves the amount paid, not what the parties agreed would happen after a missed deadline. Nina therefore has not carried her burden on the refund term. 11. Evan’s extension argument also falls short. The screenshot is a contemporaneous record and gives his interpretation some support: he asked for another week and received “Okay.” But the excerpt does not expressly say that Nina agreed to replace the Saturday deadline. Under Rule 2, a written record can carry weight, but its ambiguity must still be considered. Evan’s own submissions recognize that the message does not clearly establish agreement and that no additional proof exists. The court therefore does not find that the deadline changed. 12. That finding does not supply the missing proof of Nina’s refund term. The two burdens are separate. Evan’s failure to prove an extension does not establish that the original agreement contained the refund condition Nina alleges. Likewise, Evan’s willingness to complete the table does not prove an extension or independently resolve what the contract required. The court decides the requested refund on the evidence and burdens actually presented, not on accusations or assumptions about either party’s motives. Final order 13. Judgment is entered for defendant Evan Bell on Nina Calder’s claim for a $600 refund. Nina’s claim is denied because she did not prove the contractual refund condition on which it depends. No money is awarded to either party under this claim. The court makes no finding that Nina agreed to extend the deadline; Evan did not prove that assertion. This judgment resolves only the refund claim on the available record.