Portland small claims court orders $600 refund for undelivered bookshelf

The Small Claims Court in Portland ordered Caleb Voss to return $600 to Nora Ellison, who sought a refund for a bookshelf she paid him to build and deliver but never received.

The dispute turned partly on a short text reply sent after Voss asked two questions: whether he could deliver a week late and whether a lighter wood color was acceptable. The court found that the reply did not establish an agreed extension and that the bookshelf was not delivered.

A receipt signed by both parties established the $600 payment and a June 1 delivery deadline. The court gave it substantial weight as a contemporaneous record of the original agreement.

The full message thread showed that Voss asked to deliver on June 8, then asked about the lighter wood color. Ellison replied, “That should be fine.” Because the reply could have answered either question, the court said it could not reliably establish acceptance of the later date. Voss's understanding of the reply did not prove that both parties agreed to change the deadline.

The receipt did not itself establish whether delivery occurred. The court weighed Ellison's consistent accounts, relayed through counsel, against Voss's acknowledgment that he had no delivery record and said only that he was ready to deliver. It recognized that Ellison's accounts were not direct admitted testimony and that the absence of a delivery record was not conclusive on its own, but found non-delivery more likely than not on the evidence as a whole.

The judge also found that uncertainty over the date did not change the remedy: even under the proposed June 8 deadline, the record supported non-delivery. Voss identified no delivered goods, partial performance or other basis for retaining part of the payment.

Ellison argued that her reply concerned the wood color, not the delivery date. Her counsel said the bookshelf still had not arrived months later and asked for the full payment back.

Voss said he understood the reply as agreement to June 8 and was ready to deliver then. His side accepted that the full thread did not resolve what Ellison meant and that he had no proof of delivery, but asked the court to deny or materially reduce the refund in light of the ambiguity.

Ellison hired Voss to build and deliver the bookshelf to her Portland apartment. After it did not arrive by June 1, she requested the return of her payment.

The judgment resolves the refund claim without deciding which of Voss's two questions Ellison intended to answer. It awards the $600 paid and no additional relief.