Original in-game verdict

Background 1. Elise Morton asks for a refund of AUD 249 from Finchline Home Supplies Pty Ltd for a cordless vacuum and charger. The receipt records the purchase and shows that Elise returned six days later. Elise says the vacuum stopped charging after two uses and would not charge in two different wall sockets. Finchline disputes that a fault has been established and relies on an email recording a five-minute counter test in which the charging light came on. The hearing is closed, and this judgment decides the claim on the supplied record. Issues for determination 2. The issues are whether Elise has proven that the vacuum had a charging fault and, if so, whether the evidence supports the requested AUD 249 refund. Under the supplied burden-of-proof rule, Elise, as the party seeking relief, must point to facts or evidence supporting her claim. The supplied rules also direct the court to weigh the reliability of records and accounts, match a remedy to proven harm, and consider whether a seller had a fair chance to address a product problem. Submissions of the parties 3. Elise’s side submits that the short time between purchase and the reported failure, her attempts to use two sockets, and her prompt return support her account. It accepts that the receipt does not prove a fault and that there is no technical evidence, video, or witness confirming the failure. Elise asks for the full purchase price. 4. Finchline’s side submits that the receipt proves only purchase and timing, while its email records the charging light coming on during a brief test. Finchline accepts that the test did not establish reliable charging or explain the reported failure. It asks the court not to order the full refund on this record and points to its offer to test the vacuum again. It does not claim that the further test occurred or that the vacuum was proven sound. Evidence and findings 5. The receipt, presented by both sides, is a clear purchase record. It establishes a price of AUD 249 and a return visit six days after purchase. It does not describe the vacuum’s condition or establish a defect. 6. Elise’s account is consistent across the supplied record: she says the vacuum stopped charging after two uses and failed in two sockets. Her account is relevant and supports the possibility of a product problem. It is, however, an attributed client account relayed through counsel, not independent documentation or admitted witness testimony. Elise’s side also acknowledges that there is no technical evidence, video, or witness confirming the fault, and that the batteries were not separately checked. 7. Finchline’s email is a presented written record. It states that the charging light came on during a five-minute counter test, asks Elise to try another socket, and offers another test if needed. The email is evidence of what Finchline recorded and offered. It does not show that the vacuum continued charging reliably, completed a cleaning session, or was tested again. Both sides accept these limits. The email therefore weighs against treating the reported failure as conclusively established, but it does not prove the vacuum was sound. Reasons 8. On the charging-fault issue, the court accepts that Elise reported a problem soon after purchase and that her account is specific about the two sockets and the short period of use. The prompt return makes her account more persuasive than a vague or delayed complaint would be. But the receipt proves timing, not the fault. The email’s brief indicator-light result is a limited counterpoint, not a full functional test. The evidence leaves the cause and reliability unresolved. Applying the burden-of-proof and presumption-and-proof rules, the court finds the charging fault not proven. This finding does not mean that the vacuum was proven to work properly; it means the available evidence does not establish the fault to the required extent. 9. On the refund issue, the receipt establishes the amount paid, but proof of price alone does not establish entitlement to repayment. The supplied proportional-remedy rule requires the remedy to match a proven problem. Because the underlying charging fault is not proven, the requested refund is not supported on this record. The court does not reduce the award or grant partial relief: there is no proven amount of loss apart from the purchase price, and the record does not establish a basis for ordering repayment. 10. The repair-opportunity rule is relevant but does not change the result. Finchline’s email offered another test, and the record does not establish whether Elise accepted or whether the test occurred. The court does not treat the offer as proof that Finchline repaired the vacuum, nor does it decide that Elise was required to pursue a test not shown to have occurred. The claim fails because Elise has not proven the product problem on the available evidence, not because the court finds that she refused a completed repair opportunity. Final order 11. The charging-fault issue and the claim for a AUD 249 refund are not proven. Elise Morton’s claim is dismissed. Finchline Home Supplies Pty Ltd is not ordered to pay Elise any amount. The amount claimed was AUD 249; the amount awarded is AUD 0. This order reflects the limits of the evidence and is not a finding that the vacuum was conclusively free of fault.