Original in-game verdict

Background 1. Elena Brooks seeks return of a $240 deposit paid to Calvin Mercer for furniture assembly. The parties presented a signed booking form, a description of a June 2 scheduling exchange, and their accounts of what happened. The hearing is at the closing stage, and both sides have had an opportunity to address the evidence and the requested relief. 2. The signed form lists furniture assembly in Madison and a $240 deposit paid, credited toward the assembly price. Its appointment-date field is blank. It contains no term stating that the deposit may be kept if the assembly is not performed. Calvin acknowledges that he arrived on June 14 intending to work but did not assemble the furniture. He has no proof that the work was later completed or that Elena was offered a reschedule. Issues for determination 3. The first issue is whether Elena proved the agreed appointment date and a failure to perform on that date. Elena bears the burden of proving the facts supporting her claim. The second issue is whether Elena proved that the $240 deposit should be returned because the paid-for assembly was not provided. Submissions of the parties 4. Elena argues that she paid for a service she never received and asks for the full $240 back. She relies on the signed form, the June 2 exchange, and Calvin's acknowledgment that he came on June 14 but did not do the work. She also argues that he should have communicated about the service or rescheduling. Her accusations that Calvin deliberately took advantage of her or was a scammer are allegations, not established facts, and are not necessary to decide the deposit claim. 5. Calvin argues that the form does not prove June 7 was the agreed date because the date field is blank. He says the June 2 exchange shows Elena proposed June 7 and he replied, “Got it, thanks. Deposit received,” but he did not repeat or expressly confirm the date. He relies on his stated June 14 arrival as evidence of an attempt to perform. He nevertheless acknowledges that he did not do the assembly and has no evidence of later completion, a rescheduling offer, or another basis to keep any part of the deposit. He asks that the date uncertainty be considered but identifies no supported amount to retain. Evidence and findings 6. The signed booking form is a presented exhibit and is the strongest direct record of the basic bargain. It establishes the assembly booking and payment of the $240 deposit. The blank date field means it does not establish an appointment date. The form's terms also matter: the deposit is credited toward the assembly price, and no forfeiture term appears. 7. The June 2 exchange is described in exhibits 5 and 6 as a saved phone conversation that can be displayed with timestamps and surrounding context. The described text shows Elena proposing Saturday, June 7 at 9 and asking that it be booked. Calvin replies, “Got it, thanks. Deposit received.” This supports that Elena proposed June 7 and that Calvin acknowledged her message. Because the reply does not repeat the date, the exchange does not conclusively establish that he accepted that specific date. The record does not include a displayed original with its surrounding context, so the description is relevant but its weight is limited to what is presented here. 8. The parties' accounts agree that Calvin did not perform the assembly. Calvin's account that he arrived on June 14 intending to work supports an attempted visit, but it does not prove that June 14 was the agreed date, that the work was completed, or that the deposit could be retained. His acknowledgment that he has no proof of later service or an offered reschedule is relevant to the remedy. Elena's account that she did not receive the service is consistent with the signed form and Calvin's acknowledgment, though her account is not an independently verified document or admitted witness testimony. Reasons 9. Under Rule 1, the party seeking relief must point to facts or records supporting it. Rule 2 gives greater weight to reliable records than vague accounts, and Rule 21 directs the court to start with the agreement's words. Applying those rules, Elena has not proved the precise appointment date. The signed form is silent on that point, and the June 2 exchange does not contain an express confirmation. Calvin's stated June 14 arrival does not fill that gap. The issue of the agreed date is therefore not proven. 10. That finding does not resolve whether the deposit must be returned. The signed form proves payment for assembly, and both parties' accounts support the finding that the assembly was not provided. Rule 22 requires attention to whether the failure mattered to the bargain. Assembly was the service for which the deposit was paid; no assembly was done. The failure is material to the value Elena paid for. The record does not establish that the parties made the deposit nonrefundable or that Calvin earned it through completed work. 11. Under Rule 6, the remedy should match the proven harm. Elena seeks only the $240 deposit shown on the signed form. Calvin identifies no completed work, expense, forfeiture term, or other supported basis for reducing that amount. The uncertainty about the appointment date is real and prevents a finding that June 7 was definitively agreed, but it does not prove that Calvin may keep payment for an assembly he acknowledges he did not perform. The full return of the deposit is supported without deciding that Calvin acted dishonestly or that he deliberately ignored an agreed date. Final order 12. The court finds that Elena has not proven the precise agreed appointment date. The court finds that Elena has proven payment of a $240 deposit for furniture assembly and that the assembly was not provided. The claim for return of the deposit is granted in full. Calvin Mercer must pay Elena Brooks $240 in the currency of the payment, United States dollars. No additional amount is awarded because none is supported by the record.