Portland small claims court denies $240 flyer deposit refund over missing approval proof

A small claims court in Portland denied Erin Bellamy's request to recover a $240 deposit for a flyer design, finding that she had not proved she approved the draft by the deadline that would trigger Colin Mercer's delivery obligation. The court also denied Mercer's request for costs and fees, ordering no payment in either direction.

The dispute turned on a missing message: Bellamy said her reply approved the design while requesting one correction; Mercer treated the correction as a request for revisions rather than approval. Without the message or its timestamp, the court could not establish timely approval.

The accepted estimate set a $480 price for one flyer design and one revision, with a $240 deposit paid. It required a print-ready PDF by Friday at 5 p.m., but only if Bellamy approved the draft by Thursday noon.

That condition was decisive. Bellamy acknowledged that she could not produce her message or independently establish when she sent it. The estimate proved the contractual terms, but not whether she had met the approval deadline. Repeated submissions of the same estimate added no independent proof.

The court nevertheless rejected Mercer's broad interpretation that any correction necessarily meant rejection. Including one revision in the agreement made that reading unpersuasive. A supported message might have established approval despite a correction, but the available record did not.

Nor did the court find that Mercer had fully performed. It found instead that the Friday delivery duty had not been shown to arise. The estimate contained no refund promise, and no separate basis for repayment was established. Bellamy's decision to seek only the deposit did not remove the need to prove entitlement.

Mercer's fee request failed because no supplied rule or evidence established an entitlement or amount.

Bellamy's side described her reply as approving the draft, asking for the print file and requesting one straightforward correction. It argued that the agreed revision did not cancel approval and that Mercer left her with only a preview rather than the finished file.

Mercer argued that a correction request meant the artwork remained unapproved and that he could not finalize it while changes were being requested. He also relied on the missing message and sought dismissal of the refund claim.

Bellamy's side ultimately acknowledged that its description was not the message itself and could not independently prove timely approval. The court treated both parties' characterizations as submissions, not documentary proof.

The dispute followed a Wednesday draft and preview and the passing of Friday's delivery deadline. Bellamy limited her claim to the deposit, giving up any other claimed losses.

The judgment resolves the refund claim on the available evidence. It does not establish that correction requests always defeat approval, that Mercer earned the deposit through full performance, or what the missing message would have shown.