Original in-game verdict

Background 1. Leah Bennett, the plaintiff, seeks £180 toward the cost of repainting a hallway, together with the court fee. Owen Price, the defendant, disputes that relief and says the work was completed as agreed and paid for. The dispute concerns a repainting job for the hall and stairs at an agreed price of £480. 2. The visible record includes a WhatsApp quote stating, “Hall and stairs, prep and two coats in Dulux white, £480 all in,” followed by Leah Bennett’s approval: “Yes please, go ahead.” The defendant’s materials also state that Owen Price completed the work and was paid at completion, and that Leah Bennett raised concerns later with photographs. No witness testimony was admitted. Issues for determination 3. The issues are whether Owen Price failed to perform the agreed two-coat work in the hallway and, if so, whether Leah Bennett has established an appropriate monetary remedy and the court fee. Submissions of the parties 4. Leah Bennett submits that the written quote required preparation and two coats, that an area of the hallway received only one coat, and that she raised the problem the next morning. She says Owen Price’s reply showed that a further coat had been discussed but that he would not correct the area. She seeks £180 toward repainting, plus the court fee. Her submission relies on the WhatsApp quote and her account of the prompt complaint. The record does not include the text of Owen Price’s reply or the remedial estimate itself as an admitted exhibit. 5. Owen Price argues that the work was completed as agreed and paid for. He relies on the WhatsApp quote and follow-up exchange as evidence of the parties’ agreement and argues that later photographs do not establish the condition when he left. In his latest submission he again relied on the exchange and cited Rule 18. He did not identify evidence showing that two coats were applied throughout, nor did he propose a supported alternative amount for any limited shortfall. Evidence and findings 6. The WhatsApp quote and approval establish the agreed scope: preparation and two coats of Dulux white for £480. This is a specific written promise, not a general expectation of a satisfactory appearance. The defendant’s own file also records that the work was completed and paid for, and that the complaint followed later. Payment at completion and the absence of a complaint at that moment are relevant, but they do not establish that every part of the promised work was performed. 7. Leah Bennett’s account is that she raised the unfinished area the next morning. The defendant’s file characterises the concern as later and supported by photographs taken after the work and departure. The timing and photographs are therefore not contemporaneous proof of the condition at the moment of completion. However, the next-morning complaint is sufficiently prompt to support her account that she noticed a shortfall soon after the work. No admitted photographs, inspection evidence, or testimony establishes the precise area or extent of the shortfall. 8. The court finds, on the balance of the visible record, that Leah Bennett has shown a limited failure to complete the agreed two-coat work in the hallway. The agreed terms are clear, and her prompt complaint supports the allegation. The court does not find that the entire job was defective or that a complete repainting was necessarily required. The record establishes neither the exact area affected nor the detailed calculation underlying £180. Reasons 9. Rule 1, The Claim Needs Proof, places the burden on the party seeking relief to identify specific supporting facts or records. Leah Bennett has done so to a limited extent: the quote establishes the obligation, and her account of a next-morning complaint supports a shortfall. The lack of admitted photographs or the text of the follow-up reply reduces the precision and weight of her evidence about the extent of the work left undone. It does not erase the claim where the written obligation and prompt complaint support a limited finding. 10. Rule 2, Reliable Records Beat Vague Stories, gives weight to the WhatsApp message because it records the scope and price. That message supports both parties’ positions on the agreement, but it does not prove performance. The defendant’s reliance on the message establishes what Owen Price promised, not that he applied the second coat throughout. The defendant’s points about payment and later photographs are relevant to the timing and condition, but do not answer the central performance question. 11. Rule 21, Contract Terms Control First, requires the court to begin with the agreed words. Those words expressly require two coats. Rule 37, Consumer Promises Count, likewise requires a service provider to honour specific promises about deliverables. The court applies both rules to the written scope and finds that the supported shortfall constitutes incomplete performance of that promise. The defendant cited Rule 18, but that rule concerns business records and does not displace the more directly applicable rules governing the written service promise. 12. Rule 22, Material Breach Changes Remedies, cautions that not every mistake justifies a major remedy. Here, the evidence supports a limited failure in the promised work, not a conclusion that the whole £480 job was worthless. Rule 39, A Chance to Cure Can Matter, makes the opportunity to correct relevant. Leah Bennett says she raised the issue promptly and that Owen Price would not correct the area; the defendant disputes the significance of the later complaint but does not provide a contrary account of the reply. The court treats that account as supporting the limited finding, while recognising that the reply itself is not in evidence. 13. Rule 6, The Remedy Should Match the Harm, requires a proportionate award. Leah Bennett’s £180 request is a party claim, not a verified repair invoice or an itemised calculation in the visible record. The approximation and missing cost detail limit the amount the court can confidently award, but do not require dismissal after a shortfall has been established. A reduced award of £90 is a proportionate contribution for the limited incomplete work supported by the record. The court fee is also granted as requested; its amount is not specified in the visible record, so no figure is stated here. Final order 14. Judgment is entered for Leah Bennett, the plaintiff, against Owen Price, the defendant. Owen Price shall pay Leah Bennett £90 toward the cost of putting right the incomplete hallway work, together with the court fee claimed. The request for the remaining £90 of the £180 contribution is denied because the record does not establish the full extent of the affected area or substantiate the full remedial amount. No finding is made that the whole repainting job was defective, and no additional relief is awarded.