Original in-game verdict

Background 1. The Court is asked to decide a narrow payment dispute arising from a shelf installation arrangement in Leipzig. The plaintiff, Nora Feldmann, seeks repayment of €180. The defendant, Jonas Krüger, resists repayment and says he may retain the advance because Nora later cancelled a custom order after he had bought materials. 2. The visible record is limited. It includes a transfer of €180, a WhatsApp message promising installation on the following Saturday, the defendant’s failure to appear on that date, and the plaintiff’s assertion that no clear new installation date was given. It also includes the defendant’s contrary theory that the advance was retained for materials after cancellation. No receipt, invoice, itemization, or condition evidence is in the record for either side. Issues for determination 3. The first issue is whether the plaintiff has proved a right to repayment of the €180 advance. That requires more than showing a missed appointment; it requires a record-based explanation why the defendant had no right to retain the money. 4. The second issue is whether the defendant has justified retention of the advance by a materials-based cancellation theory. Under the applicable rules, a party keeping money must support that position with reliable records rather than a bare assertion. Submissions of the parties 5. The plaintiff submits that the WhatsApp message fixed the Saturday installation date, that the defendant did not attend, and that no clear replacement date was provided. The plaintiff further argues that the money was used for something else and should be returned. 6. The defendant submits that the advance was retained because Nora cancelled a custom order after materials had already been bought. The defendant relies on that theory to deny or reduce repayment, while acknowledging that no receipt or itemized proof is presently before the Court. Evidence and findings 7. The Court accepts as established that €180 was transferred and that there was a written message promising installation on the following Saturday. Those facts are corroborated by the record. 8. The Court also accepts that the defendant did not appear on that Saturday and that no clear new installation date appears in the visible record. That supports the plaintiff’s complaint of nonperformance. 9. However, the Court cannot find on the present record that the plaintiff has proved the legal basis for full repayment. The plaintiff’s latest submission adds the assertion that the defendant used the money for something else, but that assertion is not supported by specific proof in the record. It remains an inference rather than an established fact. 10. Equally important, the defendant’s materials-retention theory is also thinly supported. There is no receipt, no itemization, and no proof of actual cost. Under Rule 2, reliable records carry more weight than unsupported recollection. Under Rule 1, the side seeking relief must point to specific facts or records. Here, the plaintiff seeks repayment, but the record does not sufficiently displace the defendant’s explanation to the degree required for a full award. Reasons 11. Rule 1 requires the party seeking relief to prove the request with specific facts, records, or testimony. The plaintiff has proved the transfer and the missed date, but those facts alone do not fully answer why the €180 must be returned in the face of the defendant’s retention theory. 12. Rule 2 favors written messages and records over bare assertions. The WhatsApp message helps the plaintiff on timing, but it does not itself establish that the advance became automatically refundable or that the defendant had no basis to retain any part of it. 13. Rule 4 also matters in a limited way. The record shows no clear new date after the missed Saturday, which supports the plaintiff’s dissatisfaction. But notice and fairness do not by themselves establish the legal consequence requested here. 14. Rule 6 requires the remedy to match the proven harm. On this record, the plaintiff has shown a failed installation appointment, but not enough to justify a complete repayment order against the defendant’s competing explanation. The Court is not prepared to convert a documented scheduling failure into a full refund entitlement without stronger proof that the advance was not earned or was wrongfully withheld. 15. Rule 21 and Rule 23 do not advance the plaintiff’s case further because no detailed contract term, refund clause, or express condition about forfeiture or repayment is in the visible record. The Court therefore cannot rely on an unstated term to award the full amount. 16. The result is that the plaintiff has shown a real dispute and some support for dissatisfaction, but not enough to satisfy the burden for the specific repayment remedy sought. The defendant’s position is not strongly documented either, yet in a record-bound case the absence of proof on the plaintiff’s side remains decisive for the full claim. Final order 17. The claim for repayment of €180 is denied on the present record. 18. Judgment is entered for the defendant, Jonas Krüger. No monetary award is made to either side. The plaintiff’s claim is dismissed without a supported basis for partial monetary relief on the visible record.