Parties settle $300 menu design balance dispute with payment tied to printed delivery

Elise Garner and Colin Mercer settled Garner’s claim for a $300 unpaid menu design balance in proceedings before the Small claims court serving Madison. Rather than a ruling granting the balance or denying or reducing it as Mercer sought, the recorded agreement ties payment to delivery of a reasonably usable printed copy of menu_final.pdf.

The settlement contains no admission of fault. It resolves the payment dispute through an additional delivery requirement without establishing whether the final PDF originally supplied met the contract’s print-ready requirement.

During the proceedings, the court identified the distinction between the image preview and the final PDF as central to the dispute. The agreement and messages established the price, the promised print-ready PDF, preview approval and delivery of a file named menu_final.pdf. The printer’s message, however, addressed only the preview, leaving the final file’s suitability for printing unresolved.

The final terms provide for a $300 payment upon delivery of a reasonably usable printed copy of menu_final.pdf. Delivery is required within 10 business days after signing.

The record also states that Mercer authorized settlement on the basis that Garner would print the final PDF and he would pay the remaining balance. The agreed amount therefore matches the full outstanding balance, but payment is conditional on the specified printed delivery; it is not a court-ordered money award.

The settlement records no admission of fault and does not state that delivery or payment has already occurred.

Garner sought the remaining $300 on the basis that the parties had agreed to a $600 fee, with half payable upfront and half on final delivery. She relied on the accepted quote and the email exchange showing that Mercer approved the preview before she emailed the final PDF.

Garner did not ask the court to treat approval of the menu’s appearance as proof of technical quality. Her submissions acknowledged that print readiness was part of the promised work and that the printer’s message did not establish whether the final PDF worked.

Mercer sought denial or reduction of the balance, maintaining that he had approved the menu’s appearance rather than its readiness for printing. His representative argued that the supplied final copy was too low-resolution and that the promised product had not been delivered.

The court’s recorded response distinguished that assertion from the available evidence. The printer had identified menu_preview.jpg as too low-resolution and requested the original PDF, rather than reporting a failure of menu_final.pdf. Mercer’s own account also acknowledged that he did not know whether the printer had tested the final file.

The accepted email quote covered one redesigned menu delivered as a print-ready PDF for $600. It specified $300 upfront and $300 on final delivery, but listed no printer specifications.

Mercer received an image preview before Garner emailed menu_final.pdf as an attachment and requested the balance. He then withheld payment, referring to the printer’s request for a replacement file.

The record contains no printing test of the final PDF and identifies no witness able to confirm that it would not print. The settlement provides a practical delivery condition for payment, while leaving the original file’s technical adequacy and responsibility for the dispute undecided.