Original in-game verdict

Background 1. Leah Mercer seeks repayment of £180 from Owen Bell for a flat-pack desk. She offers to return the desk in exchange for the refund. Owen disputes that the desk was faulty when sold and asks that the claim be dismissed. 2. The parties’ submissions and exhibits are the record before the court. The receipt is presented as evidence of payment. The photo shows a small gap at a desk joint after assembly. The message exchange records Leah’s report that the desk rocked and, in a follow-up, that she loosened and retightened the bolt after noticing the wobble. The description of the message says its sequence depends on Leah’s account. Issues for determination 3. The first issue is whether Leah has shown that the desk was faulty when sold. Leah bears the burden under Rule 1: the side asking for relief must point to specific facts, records, or testimony supporting the request. Rule 2 directs the court to weigh reliable records alongside recollections, and Rule 37 recognizes that specific promises about quality count. 4. The second issue is whether a £180 refund in exchange for return of the desk is supported. Leah bears the burden of establishing a basis for that relief. Under Rule 6, the remedy should match the proven harm. Submissions of the parties 5. Leah says she noticed the desk rocking before loosening or retightening the bolt. She acknowledges that she has no separate dated record of that first observation and cannot give a more precise date. She argues that the photo does not show that her assembly caused the problem and that the message supports her account of the order of events. She seeks only the £180 paid, and only if she returns the desk. 6. Owen argues that Leah has not proved the desk was faulty when sold. He relies on the later photo, the time between purchase and complaint, and his account that no fault was visible in the listing picture. He also says the transaction was private and that Leah’s request is unreasonable. His client-statement accounts acknowledge that the listing picture does not establish that the desk was fault-free. Evidence and findings 7. The receipt, exhibit-3-e1 and its duplicate exhibit-11-e1, records Leah’s £180 payment to Owen’s business for one desk. It is strong evidence of the price paid. It does not show the desk’s condition or how it was assembled. The court therefore finds the payment amount established, but not the alleged fault. 8. Leah’s statements-5, 7, 9, and 11 consistently say that she noticed rocking before she adjusted the bolt. These are submissions containing her account, not separately admitted witness testimony. They are nevertheless specific and consistent, and the court has considered them as an attributed account rather than disregarding them. The dated message exchange, exhibits 10-e3 and 11-e3, supports that Leah reported a wobble and later adjusted the bolt. Its stated limitation is important: the sequence depends on Leah’s description. It corroborates her account to some extent, but does not independently establish the desk’s condition at the time of sale. 9. The photo, exhibits 4-e2, 10-e2, and 11-e2, shows a small gap at one joint after assembly. It proves the visible gap at the time represented, but the exhibit description does not establish when the gap arose or what caused it. It does not prove that Leah caused the problem, nor does it prove that the desk was faulty when sold. 10. Owen’s client-statement accounts about the listing picture are not independently verified documents or admitted testimony. In any event, they say only that no fault was recalled as visible in the picture and expressly acknowledge that the picture does not prove the desk was fault-free. The court gives them little weight on the desk’s actual stability. Owen’s arguments about the six-month interval and private nature of the sale likewise do not establish that the desk was sound. The supplied rules do not make a private sale or delay alone a complete answer to a supported quality complaint. Reasons 11. Leah’s account is more than a bare accusation: it identifies what she observed and places it before her adjustment of the bolt. The message exchange lends some support to that sequence. The court has not treated the absence of a separate photograph or dated record as automatically defeating her account. Rule 2 says records usually carry more weight than vague stories; it does not say that a direct account can never support a finding. 12. The decisive difficulty is narrower. The question is not simply whether the desk later rocked or whether Leah reported a wobble. It is whether the desk was faulty when sold, rather than becoming unstable during assembly. The photo cannot answer that question. The message’s sequence is expressly dependent on Leah’s description, and the record contains no independent observation or contemporaneous record establishing the desk’s condition before or at sale. Leah’s account supports her position, but, considering the limits of the message and photo together, the court is not satisfied that the sale-time fault is established under Rule 1. 13. Owen’s alternative explanations are not proven either. The court does not find that Leah assembled the desk incorrectly, that she caused the gap, or that the desk was fault-free. Those possibilities do not shift the burden to Owen. The result follows because Leah, who seeks relief, has not established the necessary sale-time fault on the available record. Rule 37 does not change that conclusion: the receipt proves the purchase and price, but the record does not establish a specific quality promise or a breach of one. 14. The requested remedy is limited and proportionate in form. Leah seeks no more than the price paid and offers to return the desk. But Rule 6 cannot supply a remedy where the underlying fault has not been proven. The court therefore cannot order the refund, even though the amount paid is established. Final order 15. The issue whether the desk was faulty when sold is not proven. The issue whether Leah is entitled to a £180 refund in exchange for returning it is also not proven. 16. Leah Mercer’s claim is dismissed. No refund is ordered, and no order requiring return of the desk is made. Owen Bell is not ordered to pay Leah Mercer any amount. The court makes no finding that Leah caused the gap or that the desk was fault-free; those matters remain unproven on this record.