Original in-game verdict

Background 1. Hanan Al-Sulami seeks return of a SAR 600 deposit paid to Faisal Al-Harbi for menu design. She asks for no additional damages. The parties accepted a WhatsApp quote stating: “Menu design: SAR 1,200. SAR 600 deposit received. If you stop before approving the draft, I return the deposit. After approval, the deposit pays for my design work.” The payment and the quote’s authenticity as an accepted agreement are not disputed. 2. The parties disagree about whether Hanan approved the draft. Hanan says she wrote “Looks good” and then told Faisal to wait while she checked whether everything was ready. Faisal says he understood “Looks good” as approval. He acknowledges Hanan’s account that she also told him to wait. The surrounding WhatsApp exchange is unavailable, and neither party has separate evidence that resolves the meaning of those messages. Issues for determination 3. The issues are whether Hanan approved the design under the parties’ agreement, and, if not, whether she is entitled to return of the SAR 600 deposit. The plaintiff bears the burden of proving the facts supporting the requested refund under Rule 1, “The Claim Needs Proof.” The court applies the agreement’s words first under Rule 21, “Contract Terms Control First,” and asks whether the refund condition occurred under Rule 23, “Conditions Must Happen First.” Submissions of the parties 4. Hanan argues that her instruction to wait came after “Looks good” and meant she had not approved the draft. She says the quote supports return of the deposit and asks that Faisal return it. Her submissions also argue that Faisal should have waited for confirmation before proceeding. 5. Faisal argues that he understood “Looks good” as approval, but accepts that Hanan says she then told him to wait. He acknowledges that the full exchange is unavailable and that the quote does not define how approval must be expressed. He asks the court to deny the refund only if it finds that Hanan’s message amounted to approval; otherwise, he accepts that the quote calls for return of the deposit. Evidence and findings 6. The accepted quote is the strongest independent evidence. It proves the agreed price, the SAR 600 deposit, and the parties’ conditional arrangement: the deposit is returned if Hanan stops before approval, and it pays for design work after approval. It does not say what words or conduct constitute approval. The repeated copies of the same quote in the record are not separate corroboration; they state the same terms. 7. The parties’ submissions are accounts of the disputed exchange, not the exchange itself. Hanan’s account supports her position that she had not completed her review. Faisal’s account supports his understanding that “Looks good” approved the design, but he acknowledges the subsequent instruction to wait. Neither account establishes the full context or what the words referred to. The court does not treat either party’s interpretation as an agreed fact. 8. The actual WhatsApp exchange is unavailable. That absence does not make the presented quote missing or unreliable; the quote is available and its terms are undisputed. But the absence of the separate exchange limits what can be found about the disputed approval. No further obtainable proof is identified in the record. Reasons 9. The agreement controls. It makes approval decisive but does not define approval. The court therefore cannot infer from the quote alone that “Looks good” necessarily approved the draft, or that a later instruction to wait necessarily cancelled or qualified that approval. The meaning depends on context that the record does not supply. 10. Hanan’s account that she told Faisal to wait is relevant and gives a reasonable basis to doubt that she had approved the draft. Faisal’s acknowledgment of that account strengthens its value as an undisputed part of the parties’ descriptions. But the account does not establish the precise wording, timing, or subject of the instruction, and the court cannot verify whether it limited the earlier positive words. Faisal’s stated understanding is likewise not independent proof of what the exchange objectively meant. 11. Rule 2, “Reliable Records Beat Vague Stories,” favors written records where available. Here the accepted quote is reliable evidence of the contract, but it does not record the disputed approval. The unavailable exchange cannot be used to resolve the ambiguity. The court does not decide that Faisal’s interpretation is more likely simply because he asserts it. Rather, the burden remains with Hanan to establish that she stopped before approval, the condition that would require return of the deposit. On this record, the competing accounts leave that fact uncertain. Under Rule 1, that uncertainty means Hanan has not proved her claim. 12. Hanan’s argument that Faisal should have waited does not change the result. The supplied agreement makes approval, not merely whether Faisal proceeded or began work, the condition governing retention. The record does not establish a separate promise requiring Faisal to wait for further confirmation, nor does it establish a different remedy for proceeding prematurely. The court cannot add a term that the accepted quote does not contain. 13. The refund issue follows from the approval finding. The deposit and its amount are established, but the agreed refund condition is not. Rule 6, “The Remedy Should Match the Harm,” supports limiting relief to the proven contractual entitlement; it does not independently establish that entitlement. Since Hanan has not proved the condition for repayment, no refund is awarded. Faisal’s position succeeds only to that extent: the deposit may be retained under the agreement because Hanan has not established that she stopped before approval. This is not a finding that the missing exchange definitively proves approval. Final order 14. Hanan Al-Sulami’s claim for return of the SAR 600 deposit is denied. Faisal Al-Harbi may retain the SAR 600 deposit under the accepted quote. No additional damages, interest, or costs are awarded or addressed. This judgment resolves the claim on the available record and does not make a definitive factual finding about the unavailable WhatsApp exchange beyond finding that Hanan has not proved the refund condition.