Original in-game verdict

Background 1. Signe Holm seeks return of a DKK 900 deposit paid to Foldely Møbler ApS for a custom chair cover. The dispute concerns the colour agreed and whether Foldely was entitled to keep the deposit. Both parties have made final submissions, and the matter is decided on the available record. Issues for determination 2. The issues are whether the parties agreed to change the cover colour from blue to green, and whether Signe has proved that the DKK 900 deposit should be returned. Under Rule 1, the party seeking relief must point to specific facts, records, or testimony supporting it. Rule 2 gives greater weight to reliable records than to unsupported assertions. Rule 37 requires a seller to honor specific promises about what it will supply. Rule 6 requires a remedy to match the harm proved. Submissions of the parties 3. Signe asks for return of the deposit and relies on the consumer-promise principle. Her submissions say that green was the agreed final colour, but do not describe a particular conversation or identify a message showing Foldely accepted that change. In her final submission, Signe repeats that the confirmation specifies blue and says the court need not speculate about an unnamed witness. That does not supply evidence of a later agreement or of the cover’s fate. 4. Foldely says the written confirmation records blue and that the deposit was kept because the cover was custom-made to that order. It asks the court to deny or reduce the refund request. In its final submission, Foldely accepts that the confirmation does not prove what happened after the order or independently establish delivery. It says it has no separate record showing whether the cover was made, delivered, or what ultimately happened to it. Evidence and findings 5. The presented order confirmation, repeated as exhibits 2, 4, 6, and 8, describes one custom chair cover in blue, a total price of DKK 1,800, and a DKK 900 deposit. It asks the customer to check the order details. The repeated entries are the same described confirmation, not separate evidence of separate events. The exhibit is relevant and supports that the written order was blue. There is no specific challenge to its authenticity in the record. Its weight is limited to what it says: it does not establish whether the parties later changed the colour, whether the cover was made or delivered, or what happened to it. 6. Signe’s statements that green was agreed are allegations in submissions, not testimony or a produced record. They are not accompanied by a specific account of when or how Foldely accepted the change. Foldely’s submissions likewise are not independent proof that the cover was made or delivered. Its explanation identifies the reason it says the deposit was retained, but Foldely expressly acknowledges the absence of separate proof of those events. Reasons 7. On the colour issue, the confirmation is the only specific record of the order and it says blue. The request to check the details does not itself prove that Signe accepted every detail, nor does it rule out a later change. But the possibility of a later agreement is not proof that one occurred. Signe bears the burden of showing that green replaced blue, and her repeated general assertion does not meet that burden. The issue is therefore not proven. Rule 37 does not change the result: it requires a seller to honor a specific promise, but the record does not establish a promise to supply green. 8. On the deposit, the confirmation establishes that DKK 900 was paid as a deposit toward the stated DKK 1,800 order. Foldely’s stated reason for keeping it is that the cover was custom-made to the blue order. The confirmation supports the existence and terms of that order, but not actual manufacture, delivery, or a loss equal to the deposit. The court therefore does not find those events established. This limitation is important and prevents treating Foldely’s explanation as conclusive proof that it incurred a loss. 9. Nevertheless, Signe is the party asking for a refund and must establish a basis for that relief. She has not provided specific evidence showing that the cover was not supplied, that Foldely failed to honor an established promise, or that the full deposit is otherwise due back. The absence of proof from Foldely about manufacture and delivery does not, by itself, prove Signe’s claim. Rule 6 also requires the remedy to match proven harm; the record does not establish a different amount that could be awarded instead. The court cannot calculate a partial refund from the available evidence. 10. The result is not a finding that Foldely proved the cover was made or delivered. It is a finding that Signe has not proved her entitlement to the requested refund on this record. No further obtainable proof has been identified, and the hearing is closed. Final order 11. Signe Holm’s claim for return of the DKK 900 deposit is denied. Foldely Møbler ApS is not ordered to pay Signe any amount. The deposit remains with Foldely under this judgment. No finding is made that the cover was manufactured or delivered, and no other relief is granted.