Alice v. Bob

Send the $1,000 back to Alice. Bob did not finish the website by the date in their agreement.

Did Bob have to deliver a working website by June 1, and if not, does the agreement require the $1,000 in escrow to be returned to Alice?

1. Alice paid $1,000 for Bob to build an event website by June 1. The agreement says Alice may receive a refund if it is not ready on time and no new date is agreed in writing. Agreement §§ 1, 3 (Exhibit A).
2. On May 31, Bob said he was still on track for June 1. On June 5, he wrote that he was “almost done.” Text messages (Exhibit B).
3. Alice’s June 10 screenshot shows missing sections and no working ticket link. Alice’s website screenshot (Exhibit D).
4. Bob’s May 31 screenshot shows a home page and a schedule. It supports his statement that he completed much of the work, but it does not show a working ticket link or a written extension. Bob’s delivery screenshot (Exhibit E).

A clear written agreement is enforced by its ordinary meaning. Greenfield v. Philles Records, Inc., 98 N.Y.2d 562, 569 (2002). A clear integrated agreement also cannot be changed by outside evidence. Schron v. Troutman Sanders LLP, 20 N.Y.3d 430, 436–37 (2013). Here, the agreement makes a working site by June 1 the condition for Bob to keep the escrowed payment.

The agreement gives a clear date and says a new date must be agreed in writing. The written agreement—not the messages—sets that deadline. The May 31 and June 5 texts are considered only as evidence of what Bob said about the work after the agreement; they do not add to or change its terms. Bob’s screenshot supports that he did substantial work. But Alice’s later screenshot shows that the site still had missing sections and no working ticket link.

Bob says he completed much of the work and that Alice asked for changes. But he did not show a written extension or a working site by the promised date. Under the agreement, Alice is entitled to the escrowed payment.

Signed by Arbitrator Joe Example
Legally trained reviewer