Signed judgment

Findings 1. Leah Benton and Owen Hale agree that they initially agreed Owen would build a bookshelf for Leah by June 10 for $400. Both describe the signed order as recording full payment of $400 and delivery by June 10. 2. Owen says he notified Leah of a materials delay and proposed June 17. Leah replied, “Okay, please let me know.” Owen understood that reply as approval of the proposed date. Leah says she meant that she understood he was proposing a delay and wanted to be kept informed, not that she agreed to change the deadline. 3. The bookshelf was not delivered by June 10, and it remains undelivered. Owen says it was ready on June 17, but he has no record supporting that assertion. He did not deliver it or offer a specific delivery time. 4. Leah says the June 10 deadline was important because she needed the bookshelf that week for home storage. On June 11, she requested a refund by message, stating, “I needed it yesterday. Please refund me.” The complete message thread is unavailable, and the record does not establish Owen’s response or whether he offered later delivery. Reasons 5. The court begins with the words of the agreement. The parties’ accounts support a possible failure to meet the stated deadline, while the signed order and any other terms remain important to confirm. Owen’s reported materials delay may explain the missed date, but the supplied rules do not provide that a delay, by itself, changes the agreed obligation. 6. Rule 37 provides: “A seller or service provider is held to specific promises about price, quality, timing, and deliverables.” Owen did not follow this rule. 7. Rule 4 provides that fair notice matters. Owen warned Leah that delivery would be delayed, but there is no written agreement showing that Leah approved continuing the transaction on the basis of a late delivery. 8. The order reportedly does not specify how the delivery date could be changed. The words “Okay, please let me know” are open to more than one interpretation on this record. The full exchange could clarify what was proposed, what Leah was responding to, and whether either party treated June 17 as an agreed change. Leah’s June 11 refund request is relevant context, but the incomplete thread does not resolve the meaning of her earlier reply. 9. Whether the missed deadline was material depends on its significance in context. If the June 10 deadline remained in force and was important, the facts could support Leah’s account that the failure affected the bargain. If June 17 was accepted, or the circumstances otherwise show that the delay did not justify ending performance, that could affect the remedy. The requested return of the full payment must be assessed against the proven agreement, performance, and harm. Order 10. In accordance with Rule 6, Owen shall pay Leah $400, the amount she paid for the bookshelf.