Original in-game verdict

Background 1. Inés Beltrán asks for the return of a replacement cordless vacuum and repayment of €149 from Brisa Doméstica SL. She says the replacement would not charge. Brisa disputes that the record proves a defect and asks that the refund be denied. The parties have both had an opportunity to make final submissions. 2. The record includes a receipt dated 6 May 2025 for a €149 cordless vacuum, with a notation recording an exchange for the same model on 9 May. The receipt is presented three times in the record, but those entries describe the same receipt and do not amount to three independent records. Inés also says she has a witness, but no testimony from that witness appears in the hearing record. Issues for determination 3. The issues are whether Inés has proven that the replacement vacuum failed and, if so, whether return of the vacuum and repayment of €149 are supported. Under Rule 1, the party seeking relief must point to facts, records, or testimony supporting it. Rule 2 gives greater weight to reliable records than to vague accounts. Rule 37 recognizes that specific promises about quality must be honored, but the record must still support the claimed failure. Rules 6 and 39 require consideration of whether the remedy matches the proven harm and whether the seller had a fair chance to address the problem. Submissions of the parties 4. Inés relies on the receipt and says the replacement would not start after overnight charging. Her later submission says she tried to charge it and it did not charge. She characterizes the situation as a scam and asks to return the replacement and recover €149. She also states that a witness is present, but does not provide that witness’s account. 5. Brisa accepts that Inés reported a problem and that the receipt records the purchase and exchange. It argues that the receipt does not prove a defect and that a blinking light or reported charging problem does not establish why the vacuum did not charge. Brisa says it offered to demonstrate how to connect and check the charging setup before refusing a refund. It acknowledges that it cannot say whether Inés accepted or attended, and does not claim that the demonstration occurred or that the vacuum worked. Evidence and findings 6. The receipt is reliable evidence of the €149 purchase and the 9 May exchange. It does not state that the replacement was defective, that Brisa promised a refund, or that the replacement was tested. The receipt therefore supports the transaction but not the central allegation of failure. 7. Inés’s statements are an attributed account, not independent documentation or testimony from the mentioned witness. They provide some support for her claim: she says she tried charging the replacement and it would not charge. But the record contains no witness testimony, test result, or further account explaining what was observed beyond the reported charging failure. I do not treat the witness’s mere presence as proof of anything. 8. Brisa’s submissions are also not proof that the vacuum worked. Its account of an offered demonstration is relevant to the response to the complaint, but Brisa expressly cannot say whether the demonstration took place. I find only that Brisa says it offered one; I do not find that the offer resolved the problem or that Inés declined a completed check. Reasons 9. On the first issue, Inés bears the burden of proving that the replacement failed. Her account is relevant and is more specific than a bare accusation, but the receipt does not corroborate a defect, and the witness did not testify. The record leaves unresolved whether the replacement was faulty, whether the charging setup was the cause, or whether another explanation applies. Brisa need not prove that the vacuum worked. Applying Rule 1, the uncertainty on this issue means the required proof has not been made. The alleged failure is not proven. 10. Rule 37 does not change that result. It requires a seller to honor specific promises about quality, but the record identifies no particular quality promise beyond the general purchase of the vacuum and does not establish that the replacement failed to meet it. The claim that the situation was a scam is an allegation, not proof of deception or a specific misleading statement. No separate deception claim is established on this record. 11. On the remedy issue, the receipt establishes the amount paid and the exchange. It does not by itself establish a right to repayment. Because the claimed failure is not proven, the record does not establish the harm needed to support return and repayment under Rule 6. Brisa’s offered demonstration is not a completed repair opportunity and does not prove that the problem was cured; however, that limitation does not relieve Inés of her burden to prove the defect. The requested refund therefore cannot be ordered on this record. 12. The outcome does not amount to a finding that the replacement worked or that Inés did not experience a charging problem. It reflects only that the available evidence does not establish the failure sufficiently to support the requested relief. The receipt’s repeated presentation does not add independent proof, and the unprovided witness testimony cannot be assumed in Inés’s favor. Final order 13. Judgment is entered for Brisa Doméstica SL on the claims presented. Inés Beltrán’s request to return the replacement vacuum and recover €149 is denied. No payment is ordered from either party to the other. This order decides only the relief supported by the hearing record; it does not find that the replacement was proven to be functional.