Original in-game verdict

Background 1. Darren Holt, the plaintiff, seeks return of a $600 payment made to Keira Bell, the defendant, for patio work, together with a filing fee. The defendant opposes repayment, contending that the payment secured a Saturday work slot and that the plaintiff canceled after weather delayed the work. 2. The hearing record contains the parties’ arguments and a description of a text exchange. No witness testimony was admitted. The visible exchange states that Keira Bell wrote, “We can start Saturday morning,” and Darren Holt replied, “Great, I'll send the deposit tonight.” The payment record is described as calling the $600 a deposit. Neither the described text nor the payment record states that the deposit would be forfeited or applied to lost business opportunities. Issues for determination 3. The issues are whether Darren Holt has shown a basis for return of the $600 deposit and whether Keira Bell has established a disclosed, supported basis to retain some or all of it for scheduling or other losses. Submissions of the parties 4. Darren Holt submits that he paid the deposit in reliance on the Saturday-start message, that work did not begin that Saturday, and that no forfeiture term was disclosed. He seeks the $600 and a filing fee. 5. Keira Bell submits that “could start Saturday” described an estimated timeline rather than a strict condition. She argues that rain delayed the work, that she remained willing to perform, and that Darren Holt canceled rather than rescheduling. In her latest submission, she characterizes the deposit as a deduction for the reserved Saturday slot and lost opportunities, asserting that she turned away other paying clients. She asks that the refund be denied. Evidence and findings 6. The payment of $600 is identified in the visible case record, and the payment record calls it a deposit. The described text supports a Saturday start expectation. The record does not establish that the parties agreed the deposit was nonrefundable, that a scheduling charge was disclosed, or that the full deposit would compensate Keira Bell for cancellation. 7. The defendant’s account of rain, an offer to reschedule, and Darren Holt’s cancellation appears in the defendant’s public case file and arguments. The court considers that account as a competing explanation for why the work did not proceed, but no admitted testimony or additional documentary detail establishes the precise circumstances or terms of any rescheduling offer. The court therefore does not treat the disputed account as resolving the deposit terms. 8. Keira Bell asserts that she reserved a Saturday slot and turned away other clients. No records, testimony, or specific amount supporting those asserted losses were presented. The court does not find that the claimed lost opportunities occurred or that they equaled $600. No itemized cost or material purchase amount is established in the hearing record. Reasons 9. Under Rule 1, the party seeking relief must point to specific facts, records, or testimony supporting the request. Darren Holt has shown payment of the $600 deposit and a text exchange connecting that payment to the anticipated Saturday start. Those facts support his request for repayment where the work did not proceed and no disclosed forfeiture term appears in the described payment record or text. 10. Rule 38 provides that an important fee should be disclosed before a customer commits. The court applies that rule to the defendant’s contention that the deposit could be retained as a scheduling charge or cancellation deduction. The available text and payment record contain no such disclosure. Calling the payment a deposit does not, by itself, establish that the customer agreed it could be kept in full if the project did not proceed. The defendant’s later characterization of the amount as compensation for a reserved slot does not supply the missing disclosure. 11. The defendant’s argument that the Saturday language was an estimate rather than a strict deadline does not change the result. Even if the message did not create an absolute deadline, the dispute still requires a basis for retaining the payment. The record does not show a term allowing the defendant to keep the entire deposit for the asserted scheduling loss. The court does not decide that rain could never justify a delay or that the defendant necessarily refused performance; neither proposition is required to resolve the deposit question on this record. 12. Rule 6 requires a remedy proportionate to proven harm. The defendant’s claimed lost opportunity costs are not supported by a specific amount or evidence that would permit a reliable deduction. The court cannot set an allowance for an unquantified business loss simply because the defendant says a Saturday was reserved. No material cost is established either. Accordingly, there is no supported basis for reducing the $600 repayment. 13. The plaintiff requested a filing fee, but the hearing record does not specify its amount or provide a basis for calculating an award. The court therefore grants the supported deposit claim and denies the additional fee request on this record. Final order 14. Judgment is entered for Darren Holt, the plaintiff, and against Keira Bell, the defendant, in the amount of $600. Keira Bell shall pay Darren Holt $600 as return of the deposit. The request for an additional filing fee is denied because its amount and supporting basis are not established in the record. No deduction for reserved labor, materials, or lost opportunities is awarded.