Original in-game verdict

Background 1. Nora Ellison seeks return of $600 paid to Caleb Voss for a bookshelf. The signed receipt records the payment and says delivery was due by June 1. The parties dispute whether Nora later agreed to a June 8 delivery date and whether the bookshelf was ever delivered. 2. Both parties have made final submissions. Caleb acknowledges that he has no receipt, photograph, or other record showing delivery and says his position is that he was ready to deliver. No further obtainable proof has been identified. The court therefore decides the case on the existing record. Issues for determination 3. The court must decide whether the evidence establishes that the June 1 delivery deadline was changed, whether the bookshelf was delivered, and whether returning the $600 is an appropriate remedy. 4. Under the supplied burden-of-proof rule, Nora must support the facts needed for her requested relief. The supplied contract rule directs the court to begin with the written agreement, and the consumer-promises rule requires the seller to honor specific promises about timing and deliverables. The remedy should match the proven harm. Submissions of the parties 5. Nora argues that she paid $600, did not receive the bookshelf, and is entitled to her money back. Her final submission emphasizes Caleb’s acknowledgment that he has no proof of delivery and says that even if June 8 had been agreed, the bookshelf still did not arrive months later. 6. Caleb argues that Nora’s reply, “That should be fine,” could have accepted his request to deliver on June 8. He accepts that the full thread does not resolve what she meant, that he has no proof of delivery, and that readiness to deliver is not delivery. He asks the court to deny or materially reduce the refund because of the uncertainty about the date. Evidence and findings 7. The signed receipt is a clear contemporaneous record signed by both parties. It establishes that Nora paid $600 for a bookshelf and that delivery was due by June 1. The court gives it substantial weight on payment and the original deadline. 8. The full message thread shows Caleb first asked, “Can I deliver June 8 instead?” and then asked whether lighter wood was acceptable. Nora replied, “That should be fine.” The thread is useful evidence of the requests and reply, but it does not identify which request the reply accepted. Nora’s relayed client account says she meant the wood color; Caleb’s account says he understood the reply as agreement to June 8. Neither account resolves the ambiguity. The court finds that an extension to June 8 has not been established and applies the written June 1 deadline. 9. The receipt does not itself prove whether delivery later occurred. Nora’s account, relayed through counsel in saved client answers, says the bookshelf never arrived and still had not arrived four months later. These are attributed accounts, not independently verified documents or admitted witness testimony, so the court weighs them with appropriate caution. They are consistent with one another. Caleb does not claim that delivery occurred and expressly acknowledges that he has no delivery record; his account is only that he was ready to deliver. The court finds non-delivery more likely than not on this record. Reasons 10. On the delivery-date issue, the plaintiff bears the burden of establishing the relevant agreement. The receipt sets June 1. The later thread shows a request to change that date, but a request alone does not establish acceptance. Because Nora’s short reply followed two separate requests, it cannot reliably establish that she accepted the date change. The defendant’s stated understanding is relevant but does not prove mutual agreement. The court therefore finds that a June 8 extension is not proven and that the June 1 written deadline remains the operative term. This finding does not require Nora to prove that she rejected the proposed change; the burden to establish the changed term rests with the party relying on it. 11. On payment and delivery, the receipt proves the $600 payment. Nora’s consistent relayed accounts support non-delivery, and Caleb’s concession that he has no delivery proof and was merely ready to deliver reinforces that account. The court recognizes that the record lacks direct admitted testimony from Nora and that absence of a delivery record is not, by itself, conclusive proof that delivery did not occur. But the evidence must be weighed as a whole. Here, the receipt, Nora’s consistent account, and Caleb’s limited account together establish non-delivery on balance. 12. The defendant’s request to deny or reduce the refund does not identify any delivered goods, partial performance, or other basis to retain some of the payment. The uncertainty about whether Nora agreed to June 8 does not change the result: even on the defendant’s proposed date, the record supports that the bookshelf was not delivered. The plaintiff has proved a loss equal to the $600 paid for the undelivered bookshelf. Returning that payment is proportional to the proven harm. The court awards no additional amount because none is supported by the record. Final order 13. Judgment is entered for the plaintiff, Nora Ellison, and against the defendant, Caleb Voss, on the claim for return of the purchase payment. 14. Caleb Voss must pay Nora Ellison $600 in the currency reflected by the receipt. The claim is granted in that amount and no more. No additional relief is awarded.