Original in-game verdict

Background 1. Orla Keane paid Darragh Lally €180 in advance for fitting two shelves supplied by Orla. The work did not take place. Orla seeks repayment, additional compensation for the trouble she experienced, and fees. Darragh asks that repayment be denied or reduced because the agreed work area was not clear when he arrived. He accepts that the messages do not authorize him to keep the full payment and that the record shows no work or expense. Issues for determination 2. The issues are whether the parties agreed that the wall and working area would be clear; what the record establishes about why the installation did not proceed; and whether Orla has proved a right to repayment or any additional relief. Under the supplied burden-of-proof rule, Orla must support the relief she requests with facts or evidence. The supplied contract rules direct the court to the agreed terms and to whether a required condition occurred. The supplied remedy rules require relief to match proven harm and do not support an undisclosed fee without fair warning. Submissions of the parties 3. Orla says Darragh left when he saw boxes near the wall, despite her offering to move them, and kept the advance without doing any work. She argues that the payment should be returned and that she should receive extra compensation for the trouble of trying to recover it and for not receiving the shelves’ installation. 4. Darragh says Orla agreed to have the wall and working area clear, and that boxes were near the wall when he arrived. He says the area was not ready and the installation could not proceed. He does not claim that the messages gave him a right to keep the full €180 or charge a wasted-visit fee. He says he did no work, has no evidence of expenses, and asks only for a reduction based on the preparation condition. Evidence and findings 5. The WhatsApp exchange, presented as exhibits 2, 4, 6, and 8, records Darragh’s offer to fit two supplied shelves for €180, with the request that the wall and working area be clear when he arrived. Orla replied that she agreed and had sent €180; Darragh acknowledged receipt. The exchange is direct written evidence of the price, purpose, payment, and preparation condition. The repeated copies are the same exchange and do not amount to separate corroboration. No cancellation, attendance, or wasted-visit charge appears in it. 6. The parties’ accounts agree that boxes were near the wall and that no installation work was done. Orla says she offered to move the boxes before Darragh left. Darragh says he cannot confirm from the record whether he gave her time to do so. These are attributed accounts in submissions, not independent records of the conversation at the visit. No separate message or other proof resolves the timing or whether the boxes could promptly and safely be moved. The court therefore cannot find that either account of that exchange is independently confirmed. 7. Darragh’s final submission expressly accepts that he has no evidence of expenses and that the messages do not support keeping the full payment. No evidence shows that any part of the installation was completed. Orla’s request for extra compensation and fees is an assertion of the relief she wants; the record contains no evidence establishing a particular additional loss, amount, or fee. Reasons 8. The agreement and preparation condition are established. The written exchange is reliable evidence of those terms. The fact that boxes were near the wall is also common ground. But the record does not establish how much they obstructed the work, whether they made it unsafe or impracticable, or whether Orla’s offer to move them could have resolved the problem. The court therefore gives effect to the agreed condition without treating the mere presence of boxes as proof that Orla’s conduct alone caused the failed visit. 9. On the reason for nonperformance, Orla has not proved that Darragh left without giving her a chance to address the boxes. Her account is relevant, but the timing is disputed and no separate record resolves it. This issue is not proven in Orla’s favor. That finding does not, however, establish Darragh’s entitlement to keep the advance. The question of why the work did not proceed is distinct from whether the parties agreed that the advance would be earned or forfeited in those circumstances. 10. On repayment, the written agreement describes €180 as payment for fitting the shelves. It does not describe that sum as an attendance charge or say that Darragh may retain it if the work does not proceed. No work was done, no expense is evidenced, and Darragh does not identify any agreed amount to retain. The preparation condition is important, but the record supplies no term making its breach a forfeiture of the whole advance or a stated deduction. Darragh’s own position is that the condition supports a reduction, yet the evidence does not establish a reasonable amount for such a reduction. The court cannot select an arbitrary figure. On the available record, Orla has proved the €180 payment for unperformed work, and Darragh has not established a basis to retain a portion of it. 11. Orla has not proved additional compensation or fees. The record establishes that the work was not completed and that she sought repayment, but it does not establish a separate compensable loss, a supported amount, or an agreed fee payable by Darragh. The supplied proportional-remedy rule requires the award to match proven harm. The request for extra compensation and fees is therefore denied. Final order 12. Judgment is entered for the plaintiff, Orla Keane, on repayment of the advance. The defendant, Darragh Lally, must pay Orla €180. Orla’s request for additional compensation and fees is denied. The court makes no finding that Darragh alone caused the failed installation; the repayment order rests on the proved payment for work not performed and the absence of an agreed or evidenced basis to retain any part of it. No other relief is granted.