Original in-game verdict

Background 1. Erin Bellamy seeks return of a $240 deposit paid to Colin Mercer for a flyer design. The accepted estimate states a total price of $480, includes one flyer design and one revision, and requires a print-ready PDF by Friday at 5 p.m., provided Erin approves the draft by Thursday at noon. Erin asks only for the deposit back and gives up any other claimed losses. Colin asks that the claim be dismissed and also requests court costs and “feeling fees.” 2. The parties’ final statements do not add the actual message Erin says she sent or a timestamp for it. Erin expressly acknowledges that she cannot provide those items or independently establish that approval was timely. The court therefore decides the claim on the available record, without treating either party’s unsupported characterization as proof. Issues for determination 3. The first issue is whether Erin proved that she approved the draft by Thursday at noon, the condition stated in the estimate. Erin bears the burden on that issue under Rule 1, and Rule 23 requires the court to determine whether the stated condition occurred. 4. The second issue is whether the record establishes a failure to perform that entitles Erin to recover the deposit. Erin bears the burden of proving a contractual basis for that relief. The court considers the estimate’s terms under Rule 21 and the relationship between any proven failure and the requested remedy under Rules 22 and 6. Submissions of the parties 5. Erin argues that her described reply—“Looks good,” a request for the print file, and one correction—was approval to proceed with the agreed revision. She says Colin delivered only a preview and did not provide the print-ready file by Friday. She emphasizes that the estimate includes one revision and does not say that requesting a correction cancels approval. She seeks only the $240 deposit. 6. Colin argues that a request for a correction meant the draft was not approved and that he could not prepare a final print file while Erin was asking for a design change. He emphasizes that the actual message is not in the record and that Erin has not proved the approval condition. Colin also requests costs and “feeling fees,” but identifies no supplied rule or record evidence establishing an entitlement to those amounts. Evidence and findings 7. The accepted estimate is presented as an exhibit and is described consistently in exhibits 3, 5, and 7. It is strong evidence of the parties’ written terms and the paid deposit: $240 toward a $480 total, one flyer design, one revision, and a print-ready PDF due Friday at 5 p.m. if Erin approved the draft by Thursday at noon. The estimate does not state whether the deposit is refundable and does not say that a correction request automatically cancels approval. The repeated copies are the same estimate, not independent proof of additional facts. 8. Erin’s submissions describe the message and her receipt of only a preview. Those are her attributed accounts, not the message itself or a timestamp. Erin’s final statement expressly concedes that she cannot produce the message or establish when it was sent. The court gives weight to that candid limitation but cannot treat the described wording or timing as independently verified. Colin’s statements that the correction was physical, that approval was absent, and that a designer could not generate a final file are also submissions, not direct documentary proof. The estimate supports neither a categorical rule that any correction defeats approval nor a finding that approval was timely. Reasons 9. On the approval condition, Erin has not met her burden. The estimate makes timely approval a prerequisite to the Friday delivery obligation. Erin’s account, if supported by the message and its timing, might help show approval despite a requested revision. But the message and timestamp are unavailable, and Erin acknowledges that she cannot independently establish timely approval. The estimate’s inclusion of one revision makes Colin’s claim that any correction necessarily meant rejection unpersuasive as a general reading of the contract. It does not, however, prove that Erin approved by the deadline. Under Rules 1, 21, and 23, the condition is not proven on this record. 10. On delivery and refund, the estimate proves that a print-ready PDF was due Friday only if the approval condition occurred. Erin’s account that she received only a preview does not establish a breach of the conditional deadline when the condition itself is unproven. The court does not find that Colin performed fully; rather, the record does not establish that the contractual duty to deliver by Friday was triggered. The estimate contains no refund promise, and the record establishes no separate basis for returning the deposit if timely approval was not shown. Rule 22 does not make a remedy available for an unproven breach, and Rule 6’s proportionality principle cannot substitute for proof of entitlement. Erin’s limited request is reasonable in scope, but its narrowness does not satisfy her burden. 11. Colin prevails because Erin has not proven the condition necessary to establish the asserted delivery breach and refund entitlement. This is not a finding that Colin’s interpretation of every correction request is correct. His argument that a revision necessarily equals rejection is broader than the written estimate supports. The result follows from the missing proof of timely approval, a matter on which Erin bears the burden. 12. Colin’s request for costs and “feeling fees” is denied. No supplied rule establishes those requested amounts, and the record contains no evidence supporting a specific amount or entitlement. The court does not invent a fee award. Final order 13. Judgment is entered for Colin Mercer on Erin Bellamy’s claim. Erin’s request for return of the $240 deposit is denied. No payment is ordered from Colin to Erin, and no payment is ordered from Erin to Colin for costs or “feeling fees.” This judgment resolves the claim on the available record and does not determine what the missing message would have shown.