Original in-game verdict

Background 1. Aline Ingabire brings a business payment claim against Eric Ndayisaba for RWF 60,000. She says the parties agreed on 200 labels for RWF 100,000, that Eric paid RWF 40,000 in advance, and that the remaining RWF 60,000 would be paid when the order was delivered. She asks the Court to order payment of that balance. 2. Eric disputes receiving both packs of labels. He says Aline did not provide proof that she handed over the full order and asks the Court to reject the claim. Both sides have had an opportunity to make final submissions. The record contains no separate handover record, and no further obtainable proof has been identified. Issues for determination 3. The issues are whether Aline proved that both packs were delivered, and whether the RWF 60,000 balance consequently became payable. Under Rule 1, the party asking for relief must support the request with specific facts, records, or testimony. The order note is relevant under Rule 18 because business records can show what the parties agreed. Rule 23 requires the Court to determine whether a condition that triggers payment occurred. Rule 2 guides the Court to give reliable records weight when accounts conflict. Submissions of the parties 4. Aline relies on the order note and her own account that she handed Eric two packs of 100 labels. She acknowledges that the note records the order and payment terms but not the number of labels actually handed over. She also acknowledges that she has no separate delivery record. She argues that Eric’s messages show he complained about the quantity but do not establish the handover count. She continues to request RWF 60,000. 5. Eric says he did not receive both packs. His submissions point to the absence of a count document or other proof of delivery. The record indicates that Eric sent messages raising the concern about the missing 100 labels. Those messages support that he raised the issue, but they do not independently establish the exact quantity he received. Evidence and findings 6. The order and deposit record, presented as exhibits 3-e1, 5-e1, and 7-e1, records an order for 200 labels at RWF 100,000, RWF 40,000 received, and RWF 60,000 due on delivery. The repeated presentations are the same described order note, not three independent records. The exhibit is relevant and supports the agreed order and payment terms. Its stated contents do not record the handover count, so it cannot establish that both packs were delivered. 7. Aline’s submissions state that she will testify, and later that her evidence is her own account, that she handed over both packs. This is a direct account attributed to her and supports her position. The record does not contain a separate witness statement or handover document confirming that account. Eric disputes it. His submissions and the described messages support that he raised a complaint about the quantity, but the messages are not reproduced as a separate exhibit in this record and do not settle the count. 8. The Court therefore finds that the agreement, price, deposit, and balance due on delivery are established. The delivery of both packs is not established. This is not a finding that Eric proved he received only one pack. Rather, the evidence leaves the handover count uncertain, and Aline bears the burden of proving the fact necessary for her requested payment. Reasons 9. The order note is reliable evidence of the deal’s terms, but its weight is limited on the disputed delivery question because it does not record what was handed over. Rule 18 supports using the note to identify the agreement; it does not permit the Court to treat an order record as proof of completed delivery when the record itself does not say that delivery occurred. 10. Aline’s direct account is evidence and has been considered. The Court does not disregard it merely because it is not written down. But it is opposed by Eric’s account, and the record supplies no independent handover confirmation. Eric’s complaint messages are consistent with his having raised the issue, but they do not prove the count either. On this record, neither the order note nor the messages resolve the conflict. Applying Rule 1, the uncertainty falls against Aline because she seeks the payment order. 11. The balance was due only on delivery. Rule 23 requires the payment-triggering condition to have occurred before the balance can be ordered. Since Aline has not proved delivery of both packs, she has not proved that the condition for the claimed RWF 60,000 was met. This conclusion does not determine whether Eric received no labels or some other quantity; the record does not establish that detail. It decides only that the full delivery required for Aline’s claim has not been proved. 12. Eric’s request to stop the claim succeeds because Aline has not met her burden, not because Eric has conclusively proved his version. The Court awards no amount. The record does not provide a basis to calculate a different payment or other remedy, and no alternative remedy is established. Final order 13. Aline Ingabire’s claim for RWF 60,000 is denied. No payment is ordered from Eric Ndayisaba to Aline Ingabire under this judgment. The finding is limited to the evidence in this record: the agreement and payment terms are established, but delivery of both packs, and therefore the condition making the balance payable, is not proven.