Original in-game verdict

Background 1. Lin Yue seeks ¥3,000 from Zhou Jian for an order of 500 printed boxes. The order messages state that the price was payable after delivery. The parties agree on the order terms but dispute whether all 500 boxes arrived. 2. The record includes repeated submissions and copies of the same order-message exhibit. Those repetitions do not add independent proof. The record also includes submissions about a signed delivery slip listing 500 boxes. The slip itself is described in the parties’ submissions; no separate exhibit of the slip is identified in the record. The court therefore considers the parties’ accounts of it, while recognizing that the record does not establish who signed it or how the count was checked. Issues for determination 3. The issues are whether Lin proved delivery of the 500 boxes required for payment, and whether the agreed price was ¥3,000. Under Rule 1, the party asking for relief must support the request with specific facts, records, or testimony. Rule 2 favors reliable records over unsupported recollections. Rule 18 recognizes that business records can establish the parties’ agreement. Submissions of the parties 4. Lin argues that the order messages establish the 500-box order and ¥3,000 price, and that the signed delivery slip listing 500 supports full payment. Lin asks for ¥3,000. Lin also acknowledges that the record does not identify the signer or show that the signer personally counted the boxes, and says no witness or separate counting record is available. 5. Zhou disputes the count and says an employee can testify that only 400 boxes arrived. Zhou also says Zhou did not sign the slip and challenges its reliability. Zhou asks that payment be limited to 400 boxes if that count is confirmed, or otherwise resists paying the full price. The employee’s account was not provided, and the employee did not give testimony in this record. Zhou’s statements about what the employee could say are arguments, not the employee’s direct account. Evidence and findings 6. The order-message exhibit states that Zhou ordered 500 printed boxes for ¥3,000, payable after delivery. The parties do not dispute those terms. The court finds the agreed quantity and price established. (exhibit-3-e1; exhibit-5-e1; exhibit-7-e1; exhibit-9-e1.) 7. The signed slip, as described by both sides, lists 500 boxes and bears a signature. That description supports Lin’s account that a delivery record was made for 500. But the record does not identify the signer, establish that the signer was authorized to accept the goods, or show that the signer checked the quantity. Lin expressly acknowledges those limitations and says no other count evidence is available. (statement-1; statement-5; statement-6; statement-7; statement-9.) 8. Zhou’s claim that an employee counted 400 is not supported by an account from that employee or another count record. The court does not treat the claim as proof that 400 arrived. Zhou’s assertion that Zhou did not sign the slip is likewise a submission, not independent proof of who did sign it. (statement-2; statement-4; statement-6; statement-8.) Reasons 9. On the agreed-price issue, Rule 18 directs attention to the business record defining the deal. The order messages are specific and undisputed: 500 boxes for ¥3,000, payable after delivery. The price issue is established. The payment condition matters, however: the messages do not show that payment was due regardless of delivery. 10. On delivery, Lin bears the burden under Rule 1 because Lin seeks payment. The signed slip is relevant and gives Lin some support; the court does not disregard it merely because Zhou disputes it. But its weight is limited by the missing information about the signer and the counting process. Lin’s own acknowledgment confirms that the slip does not show that anyone personally counted all 500 boxes. The order messages cannot fill that gap because they establish what was ordered, not what arrived. 11. Zhou’s proposed 400-box figure does not resolve the uncertainty. Rule 2 favors reliable records and direct accounts over unsupported recollections. No employee account or other evidence of a 400-box count is in the record. The court therefore does not find that exactly 400 boxes were delivered, and does not calculate a partial price on that basis. But Zhou need not prove a different count to defeat Lin’s claim for the full price: Lin must prove the delivery condition on which that claim depends. 12. Considering the signed slip together with the parties’ acknowledgments and the absence of any identified counting evidence, the court finds that Lin has not established delivery of all 500 boxes. This is a failure to meet Lin’s burden, not an affirmative finding that only 400 boxes arrived. The record does not support a money award to either side. Final order 13. Lin’s claim for ¥3,000 is denied. No payment is ordered from Zhou to Lin. The court finds the agreed order and price established, but delivery of all 500 boxes not proven. Zhou’s assertion that only 400 boxes arrived is also not proven, and no 400-box payment amount is awarded. This judgment is limited to the evidence in the hearing record; it does not determine a delivery count beyond what that record establishes.