One unfinished board, 600 TND at stake: Rim wins after Nabil leaves the hearing

Rim Ben Salem sought the return of a 600 TND deposit paid to Nabil Gharbi for three café menu boards, along with 150 TND she said she spent having replacement boards made.

Rim’s case was that the boards were due within ten days, but only one board was delivered and it was defective. Nabil disputed that the deposit had to be returned, saying later price changes and a requested breakfast section created additional work after he had printed a first board and ordered materials.

• Claimed deposit: 600 TND
• Claimed replacement expense: 150 TND
• Disputed work: three café menu boards

The clearest exhibit was Rim’s bank transfer receipt dated 4 May, carrying the reference “menu boards deposit.” It supported that Nabil received 600 TND for the project.

The record also referred to WhatsApp instructions and later changes, but Nabil did not place the actual messages into evidence. Nor did he provide invoices, receipts, or an itemized calculation showing what work or materials justified retaining the full deposit.

The receipt strongly supports payment, but the record is still thin on any clear approved change or itemized deduction.

• Available exhibit: bank transfer receipt for 600 TND
• Unproduced defense material: the alleged WhatsApp change messages
• Unproduced defense support: itemized materials and work costs

Rim argued that the payment record and the undelivered three-board order were the reliable written proof. She said there was no clear approved record that she agreed to reduce or alter the original order in a way that allowed Nabil to keep her money.

Nabil maintained that the deposit covered work and materials already used. He said Rim later changed several prices, requested a breakfast section, and refused to pay a remaining balance needed to complete revised boards.

• Rim relied on the payment receipt and alleged non-delivery.
• Nabil relied on alleged later revisions and costs already incurred.
• The alleged unpaid balance was not established by a stated amount or supporting records.

Rim’s side kept the dispute focused on a simple evidentiary contrast: a produced receipt versus unproduced messages and unitemized deductions. That approach matched the court’s repeated concern about whether Rim had clearly approved a change from the original three-board order.

Nabil identified a potentially important defense—that later revisions caused additional work—but did not turn it into proof. The court repeatedly signaled that the actual WhatsApp record, a clear agreed term, and a breakdown of deductions were needed.

• Use the strongest available document first.
• Tie each claimed deduction to a record and an amount.
• Answer the court’s central factual question directly.

The recorded outcome lists Rim Ben Salem as the winner. The verdict summary states that Nabil ended the courtroom phase before the case was complete, and judgment was entered for the other side.

The outcome is recorded as “full relief.” However, the record does not state a formal judgment text or a specific amount awarded, so it cannot be confirmed from this file whether the court awarded the full 750 TND requested or another quantified sum.

You quit during court, so the court enters judgment for the other side.

• Winner recorded: Rim Ben Salem
• Disposition recorded: full relief
• Formal judgment text: not provided
• Award amount: not stated in the record

Player advocate saif, representing Nabil, raised the right broad themes: later WhatsApp instructions, revised work, and the possibility that the deposit covered design and materials. Those points could have reduced or defeated a refund claim if supported.

But the defense submissions remained brief and largely conclusory. They did not introduce the alleged messages, identify the revised price or unpaid balance, or explain how the 600 TND was allocated between labor and materials. The final score was 10 for saif and 15 for the opposing side.

• Defense strength: identified a plausible change-order theory.
• Defense weakness: did not submit the documents it invoked.
• Recorded score: player 10, opponent 15.

The record leaves important factual gaps on both sides. It does not include the full original agreement, the exact delivery deadline in a signed or produced document, evidence of the alleged defect, or proof of the 150 TND replacement expense.

For Nabil, the larger gap was proof of consent and cost. The record did not establish that Rim agreed to a changed scope, that the deposit was non-refundable, or that the full amount was reasonably consumed by documented work and materials.

• No produced WhatsApp messages showing approval of revisions
• No itemized deduction or materials record
• No stated amount for the alleged unpaid balance
• No produced proof of the claimed 150 TND replacement cost

The case shows why a deposit label alone does not resolve a service dispute. When a maker keeps money after work is unfinished, the practical question becomes whether the retention is supported by the parties’ agreement and by records of actual, justified costs.

Messages can be decisive in small business disputes, but only if they are produced clearly enough to show what changed, when it changed, and whether the customer accepted the new terms.

• Keep written approval for scope changes.
• Record materials purchases and labor costs.
• State whether a deposit is refundable and on what terms.

Possibly. A stronger defense could have submitted the WhatsApp conversation in chronological form, identified the exact revisions, shown that they came after printing or material orders, and produced invoices or a cost breakdown. It also could have sought a partial outcome rather than defending retention of the entire deposit without figures.

Still, the recorded result was driven not only by evidentiary gaps but also by the early end of Nabil’s courtroom participation. The file expressly says the hearing was ended before completion, leading to judgment for Rim.

• Potentially useful proof: full message thread, invoices, print records, and a revised quote.
• Potentially useful position: concede any unsupported portion and seek documented deductions only.
• Recorded obstacle: the defense ended the courtroom phase early.

Would you defend the deposit by proving each material and design cost, or challenge the claimed replacement expense while accepting a partial refund? Take on a similar contract dispute in Legal Arena.