Original in-game verdict

Background 1. Nadia Ellis seeks repayment of £240 paid to Callum Reed for menus. She says the menus were not provided. Callum asks the court to deny or reduce the refund, arguing that the evidence does not establish the precise collection deadline or what happened after Nadia’s message on Friday. 2. The hearing record includes a bank payment record, a Friday WhatsApp exchange, a printer’s job sheet, submissions from both parties, and client answers relayed through counsel. The client answers are attributed accounts, not independently verified documents or admitted witness testimony. The court decides the claim on this record and does not assume facts that it does not establish. Issues for determination 3. The issues are whether Nadia paid £240 for the order; whether the menus were supplied or made available as agreed; and whether repayment of £240 is a proportionate remedy. Nadia bears the burden of supporting her request for relief under Rule 1, “The Claim Needs Proof.” Submissions of the parties 4. Nadia says Friday was the agreed collection day. She relies on the WhatsApp exchange in which she asked at 2:15 pm, “Can I collect now as agreed?” and Callum replied, “Not quite ready, sorry.” She says she never received the menus and asks only for the £240 she paid. 5. Callum argues that the exchange does not prove that 2:15 pm was an agreed deadline. He relies on his job sheet, which says “ready Friday,” but accepts that it gives no time. He cannot identify a later message or offer of collection and asks the court to deny or reduce the refund because the later events are uncertain. Evidence and findings 6. The bank record shows a £240 payment to Callum marked “menus.” It is clear and directly relevant to payment. Both parties treat it as payment for this order. The court finds payment established. 7. The WhatsApp exchange is a contemporaneous written record. It proves that Nadia sought collection at 2:15 pm and that Callum replied that the menus were not quite ready. The wording “as agreed” is Nadia’s statement in the message; Callum’s reply does not expressly confirm an agreed 2:15 pm deadline. The court therefore does not find that a precise 2:15 pm collection time was agreed. 8. The job sheet is relevant evidence of the order and an intended Friday completion. Its entry, “ready Friday,” is ambiguous about when the menus became ready and does not prove that they were available when Nadia asked, later that day, or at any later time. It cannot by itself establish delivery or an offer to collect. 9. Nadia’s submissions and client answers consistently state that she never received the menus. Those accounts are not independent documents, and the court weighs them with appropriate caution. But Callum does not provide a contrary account of a later collection offer or delivery; he says he cannot confirm that either occurred. His candour is relevant, but it does not establish that the menus were supplied. The record contains no evidence identifying a later offer or collection. On the balance of the available evidence, the court finds that the menus were not shown to have been supplied or made available to Nadia. 10. Nadia’s estimate that she ordered more than three but fewer than five days before Friday does not establish an exact four-day lead time. The court does not rely on that calculation to find a specific preparation period or deadline. The finding on performance rests instead on the message, the limited job-sheet entry, and the parties’ accounts about what happened afterward. Reasons 11. Under Rule 1, Nadia must support the facts necessary for the refund. Rule 2, “Reliable Records Beat Vague Stories,” gives weight to the payment record and contemporaneous message, while requiring care with recollections. The payment record establishes the amount paid. The message establishes that the order was not ready at 2:15 pm, but not that this precise time was promised. The job sheet supports Friday as an intended completion day but does not resolve later availability. 12. The uncertainty about the exact collection time does not decide the central question. Nadia’s claim is not merely that Callum missed a 2:15 pm deadline; it is that she paid for menus and did not receive them. Her account of non-receipt is consistent across the record. Callum’s own final submission acknowledges that he cannot point to a later record showing availability or an offer. The job sheet’s general Friday entry is not enough to show that the order was ultimately fulfilled. The court therefore finds, on the record as a whole, that delivery or later availability has not been established. 13. Rule 37, “Consumer Promises Count,” supports holding a provider to the promised deliverable. The evidence establishes payment for menus and does not establish that Nadia received the promised order. Rule 17, concerning loyalty by business partners, does not change the result: the record does not establish a partnership, self-dealing, or other facts supporting a separate loyalty finding. The court does not find dishonesty or intentional misconduct merely from the delay or missing proof. 14. Under Rule 6, “The Remedy Should Match the Harm,” the remedy must be tied to the proven loss. Nadia seeks no more than the £240 payment. Because the record does not show that she received the menus or that they were made available, repayment of the amount paid is proportionate. There is no evidence supporting an additional award, and none is granted. Callum’s request to deny or reduce the refund fails because the uncertainty he identifies does not supply evidence of performance or justify retaining the payment for an unprovided order. Final order 15. Judgment is entered for the plaintiff, Nadia Ellis, on her claim for repayment. The defendant, Callum Reed, must pay Nadia Ellis £240. The claim is granted in full as to the requested refund. No additional damages, interest, or costs are awarded because none is supported by the record or requested as a quantified remedy. 16. This judgment does not find that a 2:15 pm deadline was agreed, that Nadia ordered exactly four days before Friday, or that Callum acted dishonestly. It rests on the established payment and the finding that the record does not show the menus were ultimately supplied or made available.