Original in-game verdict

Background 1. Nora Bell seeks return of a $400 advance paid to Eli Mercer for a bookshelf that was not delivered. Eli disputes that he is required to refund the money, explaining that he understood Nora’s May 12 message—“I’m done waiting. This is ridiculous.”—to mean she no longer wanted him to continue. The parties were invited to make final statements, and both have done so. The record is closed. Issues for determination 2. The issues are whether the record establishes an agreement and payment; whether Nora’s May 12 message ended the order or otherwise explains the failure to deliver; and whether a $400 refund is supported. Under Rule 1, the party seeking relief must support the claim with specific facts, records, or testimony. Rule 21 directs the court to the agreement’s terms where established. Rule 37 recognizes that specific promises about timing and deliverables matter. Rule 22 provides that not every mistake justifies ending performance, and Rule 6 requires a remedy tied to the proven harm. Submissions of the parties 3. Nora’s side says the bookshelf was due May 10, was never delivered, and Nora later asked for a delivery date because she still wanted it. Nora seeks return of $400. Her side repeatedly says a signed, dated receipt documents the advance and due date, but the receipt itself was not presented. The assertion that the receipt exists is not the receipt and does not establish its contents as a produced record. 4. Eli says he understood Nora’s May 12 message as ending the order and stopped work. He acknowledges that the message did not expressly say “cancel.” He says he had bought materials, but has no record documenting those purchases. Eli acknowledges the $400 advance and says he has no evidence that Nora received value, that he incurred costs, or what happened to the bookshelf after he stopped work. He cannot establish when he received Nora’s later request for a delivery date. Evidence and findings 5. The May 12 message is presented as an exhibit. It establishes that Nora wrote, “I’m done waiting. This is ridiculous.” It expresses frustration but does not expressly cancel the order. The repeated copies of this same message do not add independent proof. Eli’s account that he understood it as cancellation is relevant evidence of his interpretation, but does not establish that Nora clearly canceled. 6. Nora’s submissions state that delivery was expected May 10 and that she later asked for a delivery date. These are attributed accounts, not independent written records. Eli’s response acknowledges that Nora later said she still wanted the bookshelf and asked for a delivery date. That acknowledgment supports the fact that she continued to seek performance. Eli cannot establish whether he stopped before receiving that request or what happened afterward. 7. Payment is established by Eli’s acknowledgment of a $400 advance. The receipt Nora says is available was not presented, so the court does not rely on it or assume its contents. Nevertheless, Eli’s acknowledgment is direct support for the payment. The record contains no evidence that the bookshelf was delivered or that Nora received another benefit. Eli expressly says he has no such evidence. His statement that he bought materials is not supported by a receipt or other record, and he does not establish their cost or disposition. Reasons 8. On the first issue, Nora has shown that the parties had an arrangement for a bookshelf and that she paid a $400 advance. The exact terms are not fully documented, and the court does not treat the unproduced receipt as proof of a May 10 deadline. Still, the accounts about the expected delivery and Nora’s request for a delivery date, together with Eli’s acknowledgment of the advance and the later request, support the central arrangement. The missing receipt limits what can be found about precise terms; it does not erase the acknowledged payment or the evidence of an undelivered order. This issue is established for purposes of the refund claim under Rules 1, 21, and 37. 9. On the second issue, Eli’s interpretation of the May 12 message is understandable as his account, but the message itself is ambiguous and does not clearly end the order. Rule 22 cautions that a failure or disagreement does not automatically justify ending performance. Nora’s later request for a delivery date supports her position that she still wanted the bookshelf. Eli cannot show when he received that request, that Nora had clearly canceled, or what happened to the item afterward. The court therefore does not find that Nora’s message provides a sufficient basis to retain the advance for an item not shown to have been delivered. This finding does not decide that Eli acted dishonestly; it reflects the limits of the evidence and the consequences of those limits for the requested refund. 10. On the third issue, the amount is supported. Eli acknowledges receiving $400. No evidence shows that Nora received the bookshelf or other value, and Eli has no documented costs to offset the payment. Rule 6 requires a proportionate remedy. Returning the acknowledged advance for an undelivered item, with no proven value or costs to subtract, matches the harm shown. Nora’s failure to present the receipt does not defeat the amount because Eli’s acknowledgment independently establishes it. The court does not award any additional amount, interest, or costs because none is supported by the record or requested as a separately established loss. Final order 11. Judgment is entered for plaintiff Nora Bell and against defendant Eli Mercer. Eli must pay Nora $400 in the currency of the claim, as a refund of the advance for the bookshelf not shown to have been delivered. No additional relief is awarded. The order rests on the acknowledged payment and the absence of evidence of delivery, value received, or documented costs; it does not rely on the unproduced receipt as an exhibit.