Original in-game verdict

Background 1. Elina Rautio seeks €490 for April and €490 for May, with the €120 electricity payment taken into account for April. Oskari Rautio accepts that the March messages discussed sharing rent while the lease ran through May. He disputes that those messages establish a separate €490 obligation for each month and accepts the €120 April electricity credit. 2. The record contains an authentic March WhatsApp exchange, bank records showing Elina paid €980 rent in April and €980 in May, an archived exchange about the electricity bill, and a bank record showing Oskari paid €120 toward that bill. Elina’s account about what the parties agreed is relayed through counsel as a client statement, not as an independently verified document or admitted witness testimony. No supplied law states a different burden or rule for deciding this dispute. Issues for determination 3. The first issue is whether Elina has proved that Oskari agreed to contribute a particular amount toward April and May rent. Elina bears the burden of proving the obligation and amount she claims. 4. The second issue is whether the €120 electricity payment was agreed to count toward Oskari’s April share. The parties accept that credit, and the record independently supports it. Submissions of the parties 5. Elina’s position is that the March exchange continued an existing half-and-half rent arrangement through May. She argues that “I’ll do my part as before” meant Oskari would pay half, and seeks €490 for each month, subject to the April electricity credit. Her final statement maintains that “splitting” meant equal shares and was to continue until May. 6. Oskari agrees that the messages discuss sharing rent while the lease runs through May. He argues that his reply does not specify an amount, schedule, or separate payment for each month, and that the record does not establish what the earlier arrangement was. He accepts that the €120 electricity bill counts toward April, but says the exchange does not establish a May rent payment. Evidence and findings 7. The March exchange is accepted as authentic. Elina asks, “Can we keep splitting the rent while I sort the move?” after noting that the lease runs through May. Oskari replies, “I’ll do my part as before.” This is meaningful evidence that rent sharing was discussed and that Oskari indicated willingness to do his part. It does not state a sum, payment schedule, or precise meaning of “as before.” Elina’s thumbs-up is part of the exchange but does not supply those missing terms. 8. Elina’s bank records establish that she paid €980 to the landlord in each of April and May. They do not establish that Oskari promised to reimburse half of either payment. Elina’s client account says the parties agreed to split rent and that Oskari did not pay his share. That account supports her position, but it remains an attributed account and does not resolve the ambiguity in the written exchange. The record does not otherwise set out the earlier rent-sharing arrangement. 9. The archived electricity exchange records Oskari asking whether the €120 bill could count toward his April half, and Elina replying, “Fine for April. We still need to settle May.” The bank record confirms Oskari paid €120 toward the household electricity account. Taken together, these records establish the agreed April credit. They do not establish the amount of any rent obligation, and the reference to settling May does not record an agreement to pay a particular May rent amount. Reasons 10. The March exchange supports Elina’s interpretation: her request expressly refers to continuing to split rent while the lease runs through May, and Oskari’s reply refers to doing his part as before. But the question is not merely whether rent sharing was discussed. Elina must prove the particular obligation and amount for which she seeks judgment. The exchange does not say “half,” €490, or when a payment was due. The record also does not establish the earlier arrangement that might give “as before” a definite amount or schedule. 11. Elina argues that “splitting” plainly means half and half. In context, that is a reasonable interpretation, but the record does not establish that the parties used the word with that precise meaning or that the earlier arrangement was equal sharing of rent. Nor does the exchange clearly establish a separate obligation for both remaining months. Oskari’s narrower interpretation is also not proved as a fact; the court does not find that he had no commitment. Rather, the competing readings leave a material uncertainty that Elina, as the party claiming payment, has not resolved. 12. The rent transactions prove Elina bore the landlord payments, but payment alone cannot establish Oskari’s agreement to reimburse her. The client statement adds support to Elina’s account, but it does not overcome the missing detail in the only written exchange or independently establish the prior arrangement. Accordingly, the claimed €490 for April and €490 for May are not proved. 13. The electricity credit is different. The archived exchange records Elina’s agreement to count the €120 bill toward Oskari’s April half, and the payment record confirms the payment. Oskari accepts the credit, and Elina’s side also agrees it should be taken into account. The court therefore recognizes the €120 credit. Because no underlying April rent amount has been proved, the credit does not result in a separate payment award or establish a net rent balance. Final order 14. Elina’s claim for €490 in April rent and €490 in May rent is denied because the claimed obligations and amounts have not been proved on this record. The agreed €120 electricity credit toward April is recognized, but no money is awarded on the rent claim. No May rent payment is ordered. This judgment does not find that the parties never discussed sharing rent; it finds only that the evidence presented does not establish the specific amounts Elina asks the court to order.