Original in-game verdict

Background 1. Nadia Bell seeks a $480 refund from Harbour Finch Furniture Pty Ltd for a flat-pack desk. She offers to return the desk if the refund is ordered. Harbour Finch opposes the request and relies on its offer to adjust the desk legs for free. 2. The hearing record consists of the parties’ submissions and a presented receipt. The submissions are arguments and attributed accounts, not automatically proof of every assertion. Nadia’s account of what she personally observed is relevant evidence, but it has not been given as direct testimony in this record. The receipt is reliable evidence of the purchase price, not of the desk’s condition. Issues for determination 3. The issues are whether the desk had a problem in ordinary use; whether Harbour Finch had a fair chance to adjust it; and whether the evidence justifies a full $480 refund upon return. Under Rule 1, Nadia bears the burden of supporting the relief she requests. Rules 39 and 6 make a chance to cure and proportionality relevant to the remedy. Submissions of the parties 4. Nadia submits that the desk rocked during ordinary use on the first surface and also on kitchen tiles. She says the second surface makes an uneven first floor a less persuasive explanation. She accepts that Harbour Finch offered a free leg adjustment, but says she declined because she wants a refund. She acknowledges that the desk has not been inspected and that the record does not show an adjustment would fail. She asks for $480 only upon returning the desk (statements 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, and 11). 5. Harbour Finch submits that it offered free leg adjustments by email and emphasizes the absence of dates for wobble reports, the offer, and refund requests (statements 2, 4, 6, and 8). Its final submission repeats the offer and notes that the desk has not been inspected; it does not provide the email itself or evidence about the desk’s condition (statement 10). Evidence and findings 6. The receipt, presented as exhibit-3-e1, shows that Nadia paid Harbour Finch $480 for the desk. A second receipt entry, exhibit-11-e1, gives the same description and amount. These exhibits establish the purchase price. Neither establishes a defect or a right to a refund. 7. Nadia’s attributed account is that she personally observed rocking during ordinary use and on kitchen tiles. The account is specific and consistent across the submissions. The second-surface observation supports the view that the problem was not confined to the first floor. Harbour Finch offers no inspection or contrary observation. I find, on balance, that the desk rocked during ordinary use. The record does not establish the cause, degree, or whether a loose fitting or adjustment would resolve it. 8. Both sides describe a free leg-adjustment offer, and Nadia acknowledges that she declined it because she wants a refund. The record does not contain the email, its date or full wording, evidence of a trial adjustment, or evidence of the likely result. The offer and refusal are established; a fair opportunity to attempt a cure is not established. The missing dates limit the weight of the parties’ accounts about timing, but do not erase their shared description of the offer. Reasons 9. The ordinary-use problem is established under Rule 1. Nadia’s account is not independently corroborated, and Rule 2 generally gives reliable records greater weight than recollection. But there is no conflicting inspection or other evidence, and the account describes direct observations rather than a broad accusation. The receipt is not relevant to condition, so it cannot resolve that issue either way. The finding is limited: it establishes rocking during ordinary use, not a serious or irreparable defect. 10. Rule 39 permits consideration of whether the provider had a fair chance to fix a product problem. Harbour Finch has shown that it offered a free adjustment, and Nadia has shown that she declined. The record does not establish when the offer was made or whether it was practically adequate, so I do not find that Harbour Finch had a proven fair chance to carry out a repair. Equally, there is no evidence that an adjustment was attempted and failed. Nadia’s stated preference for a refund does not show that adjustment would be ineffective. This uncertainty is material when deciding whether a full refund is fair. 11. Under Rule 6, the remedy must match the harm established. Nadia has proved the amount paid and has offered to return the desk. Those facts make the requested amount clear and avoid a windfall if a refund were otherwise justified. But the record does not show how severe or persistent the rocking is, whether it can be corrected by the offered adjustment, or why a full refund is necessary rather than allowing the adjustment to be attempted. Nadia bears the burden of establishing that the requested relief is justified. The uncertainty on those points means she has not met that burden for a full refund. 12. Harbour Finch therefore succeeds on the requested remedy, not on a claim that the desk was shown to be free of a problem. The finding that the desk rocked is not a basis for ordering payment without sufficient evidence that a full refund is proportionate. No alternative amount or other remedy is supported by the record, and I do not invent one. Final order 13. Nadia Bell’s claim for a $480 refund is denied. No payment is ordered, and no return of the desk is required by this order. The finding that the desk rocked during ordinary use is limited to this record and does not establish the cause or seriousness of the problem. The result reflects the failure to prove that a full refund is justified after the free adjustment offer was declined; it does not amount to a finding that Harbour Finch’s offer would necessarily have fixed the desk.