Original in-game verdict

Background 1. Nur Aisyah Rahim, the plaintiff, asks for return of a S$180 deposit paid to Lim Wei Jian, the defendant, for a table. The plaintiff’s final request remains limited to the deposit. The defendant asks that the claim be denied or reduced. The hearing record contains a message excerpt about the order and the parties’ submissions. No PayNow receipt, bank statement, delivery record, or refund record was presented. 2. The plaintiff’s representative initially described the matter as a scam. That is an allegation, not proof of deliberate deception. The court decides the contract and refund claim on the evidence and the supplied rules, not on that label. Issues for determination 3. The issues are whether the parties agreed to Saturday delivery and whether the table was delivered; and whether the plaintiff has shown that the S$180 deposit was paid and remains unrefunded, supporting a S$180 remedy. Under Rule 1, the plaintiff bears the burden of supporting the requested relief with facts, records, or testimony. Rule 21 directs the court to start with the agreement’s words. Rule 37 recognizes specific promises about timing and deliverables. Rule 6 requires a remedy proportionate to the proven harm. Submissions of the parties 4. The plaintiff relies on the message, the representative’s account that the table was never received, and the account that the deposit was not returned. The representative says PayNow receipts exist, but those receipts were not produced. The plaintiff says there was no refund response and asks only for the deposit back. 5. The defendant argues that the message does not make Saturday an absolute deadline and says a Friday warning about delay was given. The defendant accepts that the warning does not prove the plaintiff agreed to a delay. The defendant also acknowledges that there is no obtainable record in this hearing showing delivery or what happened to the deposit. The defendant denies that the evidence proves a scam and asks for denial or reduction of the refund claim. Evidence and findings 6. The message excerpt is the strongest direct evidence of the agreement. The plaintiff asks, “Can you deliver the table by Saturday? Total S$360?” The defendant replies, “Yes, S$180 deposit first. Saturday delivery.” The excerpt is presented three times in the record, but those are repeated copies of the same message, not three independent confirmations. Its wording supports a Saturday delivery commitment. The defendant’s estimate interpretation is possible, but the message does not say “estimate,” “subject to delay,” or otherwise qualify the delivery wording. The defendant’s account of a Friday warning is not supported by a presented message or other record, and, in any event, the defendant accepts that it does not show the plaintiff agreed to a delay. 7. The plaintiff’s representative says the table was never received. That is an attributed account, not independent delivery evidence. The defendant does not admit non-delivery, but also does not claim to have evidence that delivery occurred. The record contains no delivery confirmation, shipping notice, or other proof of performance. Considering the direct promise and the consistent account of non-receipt against the absence of any evidence of delivery, the court finds that the plaintiff has shown the promised delivery was not fulfilled. 8. The message expressly refers to a S$180 deposit and a S$360 total. The plaintiff’s representative says the deposit was transferred and that PayNow receipts show the transfer. The receipts themselves are not in evidence, so the court does not treat them as produced documents or independently verify the transfer. The defendant does not affirmatively deny receiving the deposit; instead, the defendant says the record does not establish what happened to it. The plaintiff’s account that the deposit was not refunded is also not independently confirmed by bank records, but the defendant identifies no refund and says no obtainable record resolves the issue. Taken together, the message and the parties’ accounts support payment and non-refund for the limited amount claimed, though with less certainty than a presented payment and refund record would provide. Reasons 9. On the first issue, the plaintiff has met the burden. Rule 21 makes the actual words of the agreement central. The message is more naturally read as confirmation of Saturday delivery than as a mere estimate: the defendant answers “Yes” to the question about delivery by Saturday and then states “Saturday delivery.” Rule 37 supports holding a seller to a specific timing and deliverable promise. The defendant’s unsupported account of a warning does not establish a changed agreement. The plaintiff’s account of non-receipt is not independently corroborated, but it is consistent with the absence of any delivery evidence, and the defendant acknowledges that the record cannot show delivery. The court therefore finds the delivery promise was not kept. 10. On the second issue, the plaintiff has shown a S$180 loss on the balance of the available record. The message identifies the deposit amount, and the plaintiff’s account says it was paid and never returned. The defendant does not provide evidence of repayment or otherwise contradict the account with a specific alternative explanation. Rule 2 generally gives greater weight to reliable records than unsupported accounts; the missing receipt and bank records therefore reduce the certainty of the finding. But the burden is assessed on the whole record, including the message and the defendant’s acknowledgment that the deposit’s later handling is unresolved. The plaintiff seeks only the deposit, not the full S$360 price or additional damages. Under Rule 6, returning the deposit is proportionate to the supported loss and the unfulfilled delivery promise. 11. The court does not find that the defendant deliberately deceived the plaintiff or committed a scam. The record establishes an unfulfilled delivery promise and supports a deposit refund, but it does not establish what the defendant intended when the agreement was made. The plaintiff’s accusation alone cannot fill that gap. This finding does not prevent the plaintiff from receiving the limited contract remedy supported by the evidence. Final order 12. Judgment is entered for the plaintiff on the claim for return of the deposit. The defendant, Lim Wei Jian, must pay the plaintiff, Nur Aisyah Rahim, S$180. No additional amount is awarded. The court makes no finding of deliberate fraud or scam. The order is limited to the S$180 deposit because that is the remedy requested and supported by this record.