Original in-game verdict

Background 1. Inés Ferrer seeks return of a €300 deposit paid to Daniel Soler for a shelving order. The signed agreement lists a total price of €600, a €300 deposit, and delivery by 10 May. The plaintiff asks for the deposit back, saying the shelves were not delivered by that date. 2. The defendant says the plaintiff agreed by phone to extend the deadline to 24 May. He also says she indicated she could wait longer and that he was ready to do the work. The plaintiff disputes agreeing to 24 May. She acknowledges that the record does not establish whether the shelves were later delivered or the deposit repaid, and says she has no further evidence on those matters. Issues for determination 3. The first issue is whether the defendant has shown that the parties changed the written delivery deadline from 10 May to 24 May. The defendant bears the burden on that claimed change. 4. The second issue is whether the plaintiff has shown that the defendant must return the €300 deposit. The plaintiff bears the burden of supporting the requested relief with facts or evidence. The court must distinguish proof that the deadline was missed from proof that the deposit remains due back. Submissions of the parties 5. The plaintiff relies on the signed agreement and says the defendant did not deliver by 10 May. She argues that her message saying she could wait longer does not identify 24 May and does not establish that she accepted that specific date. She asks only for the €300 deposit and points out that no delivery or repayment record is in evidence. 6. The defendant says the plaintiff agreed by phone to 24 May. He also says she said she could wait longer and then immediately asked for the €300. In his later submission, he says he was ready to do the work and believes he would have delivered if the plaintiff had not asked for the deposit. He does not provide a call recording, a detailed account of the conversation, or evidence that delivery or repayment actually occurred. Evidence and findings 7. The signed agreement is presented as an exhibit and is the clearest record of the original bargain. It supports the €600 order, the €300 deposit, and the 10 May delivery date. The repeated copies of that agreement are not separate corroborating records; they describe the same document. The court accepts the agreement’s stated terms as established. 8. The defendant’s statements are submissions, not independent records. His assertion that a phone call occurred is relevant as his account, but it is disputed and lacks detail about what was said. The plaintiff’s account that she could wait longer supports that delay was discussed, but does not establish agreement to a particular new date. The defendant’s statement that he was ready to work is not proof that the shelves were delivered. 9. The plaintiff’s submissions say the shelves were not delivered by 10 May, and the defendant’s account does not dispute that delivery had not occurred by then. The court therefore finds that delivery by the written deadline is not established. But the record does not establish what happened after that date: there is no evidence confirming later delivery or confirming that the deposit was returned. The plaintiff expressly says she has no further evidence on those points. The absence of a record is not itself proof that neither event occurred. 10. The defendant’s final submission contains an insulting personal remark. It provides no evidence relevant to either issue and has not been considered in deciding the dispute. Reasons 11. Rule 21 directs the court to begin with the written contract terms. The agreement sets 10 May. Under the burden-of-proof and reliable-records rules, the defendant must support his claim that the parties changed that term. His assertion of a phone agreement, without a specific account or supporting record, does not outweigh the written deadline. The plaintiff’s general message that she could wait longer does not establish acceptance of 24 May. The court therefore finds the claimed extension not proven. This finding does not establish that the plaintiff is entitled to the deposit; it resolves only the disputed deadline. 12. The plaintiff’s request is for return of the €300. The agreement proves that she paid that amount as a deposit, and the record supports that delivery did not occur by 10 May. Those facts support her concern that the agreed timing was not met. But the requested remedy depends on whether the deposit remains unpaid and whether later performance occurred. The record does not establish either fact. The plaintiff bears the burden of supporting her request, and her own final submission confirms that no further evidence is available on delivery or repayment. 13. Rule 22 cautions that not every failure justifies ending performance or a major remedy; the significance and circumstances of the failure matter. Rule 6 requires a remedy to match the harm shown. The missed written deadline is established, but the record does not show whether the order was later completed, whether the parties otherwise resolved the matter, or whether the deposit was returned. The court cannot assume those facts in either party’s favor. Nor can it order repayment merely because the defendant failed to prove the claimed extension: the plaintiff’s separate burden to establish that the money remains due is not met. 14. The defendant therefore prevails on the requested monetary relief, not because the court accepts his claimed extension or finds that he delivered the shelves, but because the plaintiff has not proved that the €300 remains payable to her. No amount is awarded to either party. The court makes no finding that the defendant fulfilled the order after 10 May or returned the deposit; those matters remain unproven on this record. Final order 15. The plaintiff’s claim for return of the €300 deposit is denied. The defendant’s claimed extension of the delivery deadline to 24 May is not proven. No payment is ordered from either party to the other. This judgment is limited to the evidence presented and does not find that later delivery or repayment occurred.