Original in-game verdict

Background 1. Leah Pritchard seeks £180 from Alder Finch Furnishings Ltd for a desk chair, in exchange for returning it. Her final submission also asks for an additional £100 for stress. The defendant disputes the refund and opposes the additional payment. 2. The shared record includes a purchase receipt. It records a £180 chair purchase and states: “Returns within seven days. Items must be unused and unassembled.” Leah acknowledges receiving it. The record does not include the advert screenshot or a written customer-support message, although both sides discuss the advert and Leah describes a support conversation. Issues for determination 3. The issues are: what the seven-day comfort-return promise offered; whether the receipt condition defeats Leah’s return request in light of her account of assembly and use; and what remedy is supported by the record. Leah bears the burden of supporting the relief she seeks under Rule 1, the Claim Needs Proof. Submissions of the parties 4. Leah says the advert offered a seven-day home comfort return. Her final account says she asked support on the purchase day whether she could assemble the chair for a comfort check, was told that a brief check was fine, assembled it, tried it for one evening, and requested a return two days after purchase. She argues that comfort could not be tested without assembly and sitting. She seeks £180 in exchange for returning the chair and an additional £100 for stress. 5. The defendant accepts that the advert promised a seven-day comfort return and did not visibly mention the receipt’s restriction. It argues that the receipt’s unused-and-unassembled condition still matters, but acknowledges that the receipt alone does not prove Leah assembled or used the chair or establish how the condition fits with the advert. The defendant asks that the refund be refused or reduced only if the condition fairly limited the promise, and opposes the additional £100 as unsupported. Evidence and findings 6. The receipt is a presented exhibit and is reliable evidence of the purchase price and the printed return condition. It does not prove what the advert said, what support told Leah, or what she did with the chair. The advert itself is described in the parties’ submissions but is not presented as an exhibit. The defendant’s express acknowledgment that the advert promised a comfort return and did not visibly state the restriction is, however, part of the shared record and is not disputed. 7. Leah’s account that she assembled and tried the chair for one evening, and that support permitted a brief comfort check, appears in her submissions. It is not a produced message or admitted witness testimony, so it has less weight than a contemporaneous written record would have. The defendant does not provide contrary evidence of assembly or use and expressly acknowledges that it cannot establish what happened in practice. I therefore do not find the support conversation independently verified, nor do I find that the defendant proved a breach of the receipt condition. 8. The receipt supports the £180 purchase amount. Leah’s request for a refund in exchange for returning the chair is clear and consistent. The additional £100 is requested in her final submission, but the record contains no supporting evidence of a separate loss, its amount, or a basis for calculating it. Reasons 9. On the first issue, Leah has established that the seller made a specific seven-day comfort-return promise. Rule 37, Consumer Promises Count, requires specific consumer promises to be honored. The defendant’s acknowledgment supports the promise even though the advert screenshot is absent. The receipt’s condition is relevant, but it does not clearly explain how a customer could test a chair’s comfort at home while keeping it unassembled and unused. The defendant’s argument that the receipt must be considered with the advert is sensible; nevertheless, the record does not show that the restriction was clearly disclosed as a limit on the comfort promise. The promise is therefore established as a meaningful return opportunity, not merely a return of an untouched item. 10. On the second issue, the receipt proves the printed condition, and Leah’s account indicates that she assembled and tried the chair. But the question is not simply whether the chair was assembled; it is whether the seller established that this conduct took the chair outside the advertised comfort return. The defendant bears no burden to disprove Leah’s claim, but Leah has shown the promise and the defendant has acknowledged that the restriction was not visible in the advert. The defendant’s own submission also recognizes that the receipt alone does not prove a breach or settle the conflict. Under Rule 1, the court must decide from the specific record, not assume that a printed condition silently overrides a conflicting promise. I find the receipt condition established as printed, but find it not proven that it defeats Leah’s return right in these circumstances. This conclusion does not treat the support conversation as independently verified; it rests on the acknowledged advert promise and the lack of a clear disclosed limit. 11. On remedy, Rule 6, The Remedy Should Match the Harm, supports the £180 refund upon return of the chair. The amount matches the receipt and avoids Leah keeping both the chair and the purchase price. The additional £100 is not supported by evidence establishing a separate loss or a reliable amount. Leah’s understandable assertion that the dispute caused stress is not enough, on this record, to justify a further monetary award. That part of the request is denied. Final order 12. Judgment is for the plaintiff on the £180 refund claim. The defendant must pay Leah Pritchard £180 in exchange for her returning the desk chair. The record does not establish any additional payment obligation, and the request for £100 for stress is denied. 13. This is partial relief: Leah succeeds on the refund, but not on the additional stress payment. No further amount, interest, or costs is awarded because none is supported by the supplied record or requested on a supported basis.