Original in-game verdict

Background 1. Nuria Beltrán seeks repayment from Iván Soler after paying an invoice for €300. The invoice lists €180 for assembly and €120 for two additional hours. Nuria disputes the extra-hours charge and asks to cancel the entire transaction. Iván asks that repayment be denied or limited. 2. The hearing is closed. The parties have had opportunities to address the disputed approval and the requested remedy. Iván has said he has no written approval or other obtainable proof of advance agreement. No further adjournment is available or warranted on this record. Issues for determination 3. The first issue is whether Nuria has shown that the extra work and €120 charge were not agreed or otherwise violated the parties’ agreement. Nuria bears the burden of proving her claim for relief. The supplied rules direct the court to consider the agreement’s terms, specific promises, and whether fees were disclosed before the customer committed. 4. The second issue is whether Nuria has shown a right to repayment and, if so, what amount is supported. The remedy should match the proven harm and should not exceed what the evidence justifies. Submissions of the parties 5. Nuria argues that the extra charge was not agreed in advance and that the agreement required written approval for extras. She says payment does not show acceptance because she paid despite feeling unsafe during the discussion. She asks to cancel the entire transaction. Her later submission also asserts that the defense lacks proof of approval. 6. Iván says Nuria asked him in writing to finish that day and that he understood this as permission to continue. He acknowledges that the message is not in evidence and that he has no other obtainable proof of advance approval or an agreed extra price. He relies on the invoice and payment as context for his understanding, not as conclusive proof of prior agreement. He argues that any repayment should be limited rather than cancelling the whole transaction. Evidence and findings 7. Exhibit 2, repeated in later copies, is an invoice listing €180 for assembly and €120 for two additional hours, with a bank-transfer confirmation showing Nuria paid €300 that evening and referenced the invoice number. The repeated copies are the same described invoice and transfer, not independent corroboration. They reliably establish the billed amounts and payment, but do not establish what the parties agreed before the extra work was done. 8. Iván’s statements that Nuria requested same-day completion are attributed accounts, not a produced message or admitted witness testimony. Iván expressly acknowledges that he cannot show the message and has no other obtainable proof of advance approval. The court therefore gives that account limited weight on whether Nuria agreed to the extra work or its price. 9. Nuria’s assertion that written approval was required is also an allegation, not a produced contract term. No contract, quote, message, or other record in the hearing establishes that requirement. Her explanation that she paid because she felt unsafe is part of her account, but the record contains no independent evidence resolving the circumstances of payment. The court does not treat payment as conclusive acceptance; it establishes payment and is relevant context only. Reasons 10. On the first issue, the record leaves uncertainty about advance agreement. The invoice proves that Iván charged €120 for two additional hours, and the transfer proves that Nuria paid the full invoice. Neither proves advance approval. Iván’s account of a written request is unsupported by the message, and he concedes that no other obtainable proof exists. Conversely, Nuria has not established the written-approval term she relies on or otherwise shown what the parties agreed about extra work and charges. 11. Rules 21 and 37 make the agreement and any specific service or price promises central. Rule 38, although supplied as a consumer-fee rule, also reflects the relevance of whether an unexpected fee was disclosed before commitment. These rules do not make the absence of a document automatic proof for either side. Under Rule 1, Nuria must support the claim for relief with evidence. Because the record does not establish either the alleged approval requirement or that the charge was unauthorized under the actual agreement, Nuria has not met that burden. The issue is therefore not proven, rather than a finding that advance approval in fact occurred. 12. On the second issue, the invoice and transfer establish that Nuria paid €300. But repayment depends on proving that some part of that payment was not owed. Since the alleged breach is not proven, the record does not support an award. Further, Nuria asks to cancel the entire transaction without evidence that the €180 assembly charge was improper. Under Rule 6, a remedy must match the proven harm. Even if the extra charge had been shown to be unauthorized, the evidence presented would not justify undoing the assembly portion as well. This is not a finding that the extra charge was agreed; it is a conclusion that the requested repayment has not been proven on this record. 13. Iván prevails because Nuria has not carried her burden, not because the invoice or payment conclusively proves advance agreement. The court does not find that Nuria’s safety explanation is false; the available evidence does not resolve it. No amount is awarded to either party. Final order 14. Nuria Beltrán’s claim for repayment is denied. No repayment is ordered, and the request to cancel the €300 transaction is denied. Iván Soler is not ordered to pay Nuria any amount. This judgment decides only the claim and evidence presented in this hearing; it does not make a factual finding that Nuria approved the extra work or the €120 price in advance.