Original in-game verdict

Background 1. Leanne Foster bought a cordless vacuum and its charging kit from Bramble Home Supplies Ltd on 6 May 2026 for £129. She says that after eleven days of ordinary use the vacuum stopped charging, and that she returned the vacuum and charger to Bramble’s Bristol shop on 17 May. She asks for the £129 back in exchange for Bramble keeping the items. 2. Bramble refuses the refund. It argues that the charger was unsuitable or physically broken and that the problem was caused by the customer. The parties have now made their final statements. No further evidence is identified as obtainable, and adjournment is not allowed. Issues for determination 3. The issues are whether the purchase and price are established; whether the vacuum failed during ordinary use and what can be concluded about the cause; and whether the evidence supports the requested refund. The plaintiff bears the burden of supporting her request with specific facts, records, or testimony under Rule 1, the Claim Needs Proof. The court also considers the reliability of records and accounts under Rule 2, Reliable Records Beat Vague Stories, and whether the remedy matches the proven harm under Rule 6, The Remedy Should Match the Harm. Rule 37, Consumer Promises Count, applies to the seller’s promises about quality and deliverables. Submissions of the parties 4. Leanne says the vacuum stopped charging after eleven days of ordinary use, that she used the charger supplied with it, and that she returned both items. She relies on the receipt for the purchase and price. She also describes a return note that allegedly recorded a charger model code matching the shop’s stock record and said the vacuum was not tested with another charger. She accepts that the receipt does not prove which charger she used at home or the technical cause of the failure. She maintains that Bramble’s explanation was not confirmed and asks for £129 back, with Bramble keeping the items. 5. Bramble asks the court to deny the refund. Its submissions refer to an 18 May refusal email, staff examination of the charger, a matching model code, and a customer-caused charging problem. Bramble also says the vacuum was sold in standard condition and refers generally to staff training. It does not provide the refusal email, the return note, a test result, or a specific account of what staff observed that establishes the cause. Evidence and findings 6. The receipt is presented as exhibit-3-e1, with duplicate receipt entries at exhibit-5-e1 and exhibit-9-e1. The parties accept the purchase and price. The receipt establishes that the vacuum and a charging kit were sold for £129 on 6 May 2026. It does not establish which charger Leanne used at home, whether the vacuum later failed, or why. 7. Leanne’s statements are submissions and attributed accounts, not a separate produced document or admitted witness testimony. They nevertheless give a consistent, direct description of what she says she observed: the vacuum stopped charging after eleven days, she used the supplied charger, and she returned both items. Her final statement expressly acknowledges that she has no further independent records or witnesses. That candour supports the reliability of her account, but does not turn it into independent technical proof. 8. The return note and refusal email are described in submissions but are not presented exhibits. The court therefore cannot verify their wording or treat the alleged details as established documentary facts. Bramble’s own submissions do confirm that it refused the refund and that staff assessed the charger, but the account of the examination remains general. Bramble says the charger was presumed physically broken and that staff observations informed a customer-caused assessment; it does not identify the observations, explain how the vacuum was tested, or provide a result showing that the vacuum itself was not faulty. Reasons 9. The purchase-and-price issue is established. The receipt is a reliable record of the transaction, and both parties accept it. The amount at stake is therefore £129. 10. On the product-failure issue, Leanne has the burden. Her account is not independently corroborated as to the failure or the charger used, and the receipt alone cannot prove either point. Those are real limits. But her account is firsthand, specific, and consistent across the hearing: the vacuum stopped charging after eleven days of ordinary use, she used the supplied charger, and she returned the items. The court accepts that account on balance. 11. The precise technical cause remains uncertain. The alleged matching model code, even if accurately described, would not by itself establish which charger Leanne used at home or why the vacuum stopped charging. The alleged absence of a test with another charger is likewise not independently verified because the return note is not presented. The court does not treat either alleged note detail as proven. Bramble’s alternative explanation is also uncertain: its submissions do not give the specific observations or test results needed to show that customer use, rather than a product problem, caused the failure. The uncertainty about technical cause does not outweigh Leanne’s direct account that the vacuum stopped charging during ordinary use. 12. On the refund issue, the receipt establishes the amount, and Leanne’s accepted account establishes an early failure and return. Bramble confirms that it refused the refund, although the contents of the refusal email are not before the court. Rule 37 requires consumer promises about quality and deliverables to be honored. The supplied rules do not set out a separate technical test or a more detailed refund procedure. Applying Rule 6, a refund of the purchase price in exchange for return of the vacuum and charging kit is tied to the proven problem and does not exceed the loss shown. Bramble’s general assertions about the product’s condition when sold and staff training do not answer the evidence of failure after eleven days. Its request to deny the refund therefore fails. Final order 13. Judgment is entered for the plaintiff, Leanne Foster. The defendant, Bramble Home Supplies Ltd, must pay Leanne Foster £129 in exchange for her returning the cordless vacuum and charging kit to Bramble. This order grants the requested refund and does not award any additional amount. The record supports no further monetary relief.