Original in-game verdict

Background 1. Nora Bell seeks a $450 refund from Evan Mercer for a custom banner. The shared record includes a receipt listing the payment and “pickup by May 9, 2025,” a text in which Evan said that using darker green would mean pickup on May 12, and Nora’s reply, “That works.” It also includes Evan’s May 12 message stating that the banner was ready for pickup. 2. The parties disagree about whether Nora accepted May 12 as the new deadline. They also disagree about what happened after the banner was ready. Evan says Nora refused it, but his account does not give a date or her exact words. Nora says the record does not establish that she received or rejected it. Both sides were invited to make final submissions, and no further proof was presented. Issues for determination 3. The first issue is whether Evan proved that Nora agreed to change the May 9 pickup deadline. Evan bears the burden on that issue because he relies on an alleged change to the written term. 4. The second issue is whether Nora proved that she is entitled to the requested $450 refund. Nora bears the burden on her claim. The supplied rule, Wis. Stat. § 402.602(1), states that rejection must occur within a reasonable time after delivery or tender and is ineffective unless the buyer seasonably notifies the seller. The record does not supply further legal rules about the available remedy, so the decision is limited to whether Nora proved her requested refund on this record. Submissions of the parties 5. Nora argues that the receipt sets May 9 and that “That works” approved the darker color, not a later deadline. She says the May 12 notice proves only that Evan reported the banner ready then, and that Evan’s uncertain account of a refusal does not establish a rejection date. She asks for the full $450. 6. Evan argues that the color and date were mentioned together, so Nora’s reply reasonably approved both. He says Nora refused the completed banner and that he remains willing to provide it. He opposes a refund, relying on the alleged revised agreement and on the uncertainty about the refusal. Evidence and findings 7. The receipt is a presented document recording a $450 payment and pickup by May 9. It is direct, specific evidence of the original transaction terms. No party disputes that Nora paid the stated amount. The receipt does not itself show any later agreement. 8. The earlier text says, “The original green is out. With the darker green, pickup would be May 12.” Nora’s “That works” followed that message. The text connects the color and date, which supports Evan’s interpretation. But it does not expressly ask Nora to accept a changed deadline, and her brief reply does not identify which part she accepted. Evan’s client statement says he understood her to accept both; that is an attributed account of his understanding, not independent proof of Nora’s intent. 9. Evan’s May 12 message says, “Your banner is ready for pickup.” It establishes that he reported readiness on that date. It does not independently establish the banner’s condition, delivery, or Nora’s acceptance of a later deadline. 10. Evan’s client account says Nora refused the banner, but he does not recall her exact words. His submissions do not place the refusal on a definite date, and no presented message records it. This account is relevant, but its uncertainty limits its weight. Nora’s statements that she does not recall a refusal and that no message shows one are submissions, not independent proof that no refusal occurred. The record therefore does not establish whether, when, or how Nora rejected or received the banner. Reasons 11. On the deadline-change issue, Evan has not met his burden. The text and reply make his interpretation plausible, but the written receipt sets May 9 and the reply is ambiguous. The court cannot treat the ambiguity as proof that Nora accepted a later deadline. This issue is not proven. That finding does not establish that Nora is entitled to a refund; it resolves only whether Evan proved the alleged change. 12. On the refund issue, Nora has proved payment and the written pickup term. The evidence also shows that Evan reported the banner ready on May 12, after the date on the receipt. Those facts support Nora’s argument that the original deadline was missed. But the record does not establish what happened after the readiness notice, including whether Nora rejected the banner, when she did so, or whether she seasonably notified Evan. Those are material uncertainties under the supplied rule governing rejection. 13. The court does not find that Evan proved a timely rejection or that Nora accepted the later deadline. Nor does the court find that Nora received the banner. Rather, the evidence leaves the events after the readiness notice unresolved. Because Nora bears the burden of proving entitlement to the requested refund, that unresolved gap means she has not established the claim. Evan’s uncertainty does not shift Nora’s burden, and the court does not award Evan any separate payment or relief. 14. The result is limited to the claim and evidence presented. The court does not decide any unrequested remedy or make a finding about the banner’s present condition. The record supports no amount to award Nora, and no separate amount is claimed or established for Evan. Final order 15. Judgment is entered for defendant Evan Mercer on plaintiff Nora Bell’s claim for a $450 refund. Nora’s request for a $450 refund is denied, and no payment is ordered from either party to the other. The court finds that Evan did not prove Nora agreed to change the May 9 deadline, but that finding does not alter the denial because Nora did not prove entitlement to the requested refund on the available record.