Original in-game verdict

Background 1. Leah Mercer seeks repayment of an A$180 deposit paid for a household cleaning booking with Owen Bell. She also asks for additional compensation for the time she says Owen kept the money and for an effect on her quality of life. Owen asks the court to deny or reduce the refund, relying on an invoice that says deposits are non-refundable and on the fact that he held the booking time. 2. The record contains the original booking conversation, the paid invoice, and the cancellation and refusal exchange. The parties have both made closing submissions. No adjournment is available or needed to decide the dispute on this record. Issues for determination 3. The first issue is whether Leah has shown that the refund promise in the original booking message governed, despite the later invoice wording. Leah bears the burden of proving the facts supporting her request. The relevant supplied rules are Rule 1, the claim needs proof; Rule 2, reliable records usually carry more weight than vague accounts; Rule 37, specific consumer promises count; and Rule 38, fees need disclosure. 4. The second issue is whether the evidence supports repayment of A$180 and any additional compensation. Leah bears the burden of proving the amount and the harm supporting the remedy. Rule 6 requires a remedy to match the proven harm. Submissions of the parties 5. Leah says Owen sent a message before payment promising a refund if she cancelled at least 48 hours before the booking. She says she relied on that promise, paid A$180, and cancelled on Wednesday for the Saturday booking. She seeks the full deposit and additional compensation for the time the money was withheld and its effect on her quality of life. 6. Owen relies on the invoice, which states that deposits are non-refundable, and says he reserved the Saturday booking time. In his final submission, however, Owen acknowledges that the original booking message clearly promised a refund for cancellation at least 48 hours ahead and that Leah’s cancellation met that timing. He cannot show that Leah agreed the invoice replaced the earlier promise, and he has no separate proof of a specific loss from holding the booking time. He maintains his request to deny or reduce the refund. Evidence and findings 7. Exhibit 5-e3 and exhibit 6-e3 present the original booking conversation. Owen’s message says: “Saturday 14 November, 9 am is yours once the A$180 deposit is paid. Cancel at least 48 hours before the booking and I will refund the deposit.” Leah replies, “Thanks, please send the invoice.” The exhibit description identifies this as the original dated conversation available for inspection on Leah’s phone. It is direct evidence of the words exchanged before the invoice. The record does not describe independent verification, so the court considers that limitation; it does not make the presented conversation a missing item. 8. Exhibits 5-e1 and 6-e1 are the paid invoice. They record a A$180 deposit paid on Monday 9 November and state, “Deposits non-refundable.” The invoice is legible and records payment and its wording. It does not explain how that wording relates to the earlier message or show that Leah agreed to change the earlier refund condition. 9. Exhibits 2-e2, 4-e2, and 6-e2 are repeated presentations of the cancellation exchange, not separate events. The exchange shows Leah cancelling on Wednesday 11 November at 6 pm for the Saturday 14 November 9 am booking and asking for her deposit back. Owen replies that the booking is cancelled and the invoice says deposits are non-refundable. This supports the timing of cancellation and Owen’s stated reason for refusal. It does not establish what term governed before payment. 10. Leah’s submissions and saved client account describe her reliance and the effect of the withheld money. Those accounts are considered as attributed statements, not as independent documents or admitted witness testimony. The original message and invoice provide stronger evidence of the terms and payment. Owen’s closing submission is a concession about the message’s wording and the absence of proof that the invoice replaced it; it is not a concession that he must pay, which remains for the court to decide. Reasons 11. On the first issue, Leah has proved the refund term on the balance of the available record. The original message is specific, precedes the invoice, identifies the deposit, and states the condition for a refund. Leah’s reply asks for the invoice but does not say she accepts a different refund term. The invoice’s later non-refundable wording is important contrary evidence, but the record does not show that Leah agreed to replace the earlier promise or that Owen clearly explained the conflict before she committed. Under Rules 37 and 38, the specific earlier promise counts, and a later fee restriction is weaker where the record does not establish clear prior agreement to it. Owen’s reliance on the invoice explains his refusal but does not overcome the earlier promise. The first issue is established. 12. The cancellation condition was met. The original message sets a 48-hour deadline, and the cancellation exchange shows cancellation on Wednesday evening for a Saturday morning booking. Owen also accepts in his closing submission that Leah cancelled within the stated condition. The court therefore finds that the promised refund became due. 13. On the amount, the invoice records that A$180 was paid, and the original message promises return of that deposit if the condition is met. Owen’s assertion that he held the booking time is not accompanied by evidence of a specific loss or a term allowing him to retain part of the deposit despite the refund promise. Rule 6 does not justify reducing the promised refund on an unsupported estimate. The A$180 refund is established. 14. Leah’s additional request for compensation is different. Her submissions describe time and reduced quality of life, but the record contains no specific, measurable loss or evidence supporting an additional amount. The court does not treat the seriousness of her concern as proof of a separate monetary loss. That additional request is not proven and is denied. This does not reduce the deposit refund, which is supported by the written promise and payment record. Final order 15. Judgment is entered for the plaintiff, Leah Mercer, on the deposit claim. The defendant, Owen Bell, must pay Leah Mercer A$180 in Australian dollars as repayment of the deposit. 16. Leah’s separate request for additional compensation for time or reduced quality of life is denied for lack of proof of a specific measurable loss. No other monetary relief is awarded. The claim is otherwise resolved in Leah’s favour to the extent stated in this order.