Sample evidence brief
Supply dispute: what the records settle.
Sample data · not a real case
Bottom line.
5 of 10 disputed points are settled by the records; 3 are still disputed and 2 can't be decided from the records provided.
6 of 10 terms are agreed. Still disputed or open: amount due on invoice 103, late-delivery credit, storage fees, and adjustment for deliveries 4 and 5.
The records support $33,000–$36,000 of the $57,000 Party A claims, and $0–$12,000 of the $12,000 in offsets Party B claims.
5 Settled by the records
3 Still disputed
2 Records can't decide
6 of 10 Terms agreed
6 of 10 terms agreed · 4 to go Sample data · not a real case
| Term | Status | Blocked by |
|---|---|---|
| Amount due on invoice 103 | Disputed | |
| Late-delivery credit | Disputed | |
| Storage fees | Open | |
| Adjustment for deliveries 4 and 5 | Open | |
| Invoices 101 and 102 treated as paid | Agreed | — |
| Return of unsold stock | Agreed | — |
| Payment in three installments | Agreed | — |
| Mutual release of claims | Agreed | — |
| Confidentiality | Agreed | — |
| No further orders; the supply relationship ends | Agreed | — |
Obligations after signing · as of Day 120 (illustrative)
| Obligation | Due | Status | Record |
|---|---|---|---|
| Party B pays installment 1 ($10,000) | Day 97 | Verified by a record | Bank line on Day 96, $10,000. (S-10) |
| Party A collects unsold stock | Day 104 | Verified by a record | Returns log entry on Day 103. (S-11) |
| Party B pays installment 2 ($10,000) | Day 118 | Past due · no matching record | No matching bank line through Day 120. (S-10) |
| Party B pays installment 3 ($10,000) | Day 139 | Due | Not yet due. |
| Both parties delete copies of the shared customer list | Day 120 | Can't be checked from records | Deletion leaves no record in the documents provided. The parties' written confirmations are the only evidence. |
We document what the records show. Enforcement stays with the parties, counsel and the court.
What the records settle Sample data · not a real case
| Point | Party A says | Party B says | What the records show | Label | Sources |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Still disputed (3) | |||||
| Blocks agreement | Delivery 4 was complete. | Delivery 4 was 40 units short. | Party A's delivery log records a full load. Party B's receiving log records 40 units short. | Contradicted | 2 |
| Blocks agreement | No credit was ever offered. | A $6,000 credit was promised on a call. | An unsigned $6,000 credit memo draft exists in Party A's files. No signed version or written acceptance was found. | Single source Inference | 1 |
| Blocks agreement | $24,000, as invoiced. | $21,000: the revised quantity at the agreed price. | The invoice says $24,000. The revised order of 140 units at the contract price of $150 comes to $21,000. | Contradicted | 2 |
| Records can't decide (2) | |||||
| Blocks agreement | No rejection was received. | Delivery 5 was rejected by phone. | No written rejection was found in the email or text records for Days 43 to 50. | No trace found | 0 |
| Blocks agreement | Storage is billed at $3,000 under the contract. | No storage rate was ever agreed. | The contract allows storage fees "at agreed rates". No rate schedule was found in the contract, email or texts. | No trace found | 0 |
| Settled by the records (5) | |||||
| Party B agreed to a reduced run of 140 units. | No reduction was agreed. | Party B's manager emailed "go ahead with the reduced run" on Day 9, and a text the same day confirms it. | Corroborated | 2 | |
| Every delivery was on time. | Three of five deliveries were late. | Both logs show deliveries 3 and 4 arrived one day after their scheduled day. The other three were on time. | Corroborated | 2 | |
| It was paid late. | It was paid on time. | Due Day 30. Party B's bank statement shows $15,000 paid on Day 31, reference INV-101. | Shown in the record | 2 | |
| Invoice 102 is unpaid. | Invoice 102 was paid. | Party B's bank statement shows $18,000 paid on Day 38, reference INV-102. | Shown in the record | 1 | |
| Party B stopped ordering. | Party A stopped shipping. | Party B's last purchase order is dated Day 45. On Day 46 Party A texted that it was holding further shipments until invoice 103 was sorted out. | Corroborated | 2 | |
Labels describe how well the records support each point. They are not the odds of any outcome.
Deliveries 3 and 4 arrived a day late; Party A paused shipments on Day 46.
Sample data · not a real case| Day | Who | Event | Sources | Related points |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Both parties | Supply agreement signed | S-01 | — |
| 2 | Party B | Purchase order PO-3: 160 units | S-02 | — |
| 9 | Party B | Email: "go ahead with the reduced run" (140 units) | S-07 | I-01 |
| 9 | Party B | Text confirming the reduced run | S-08 | I-01 |
| 14 | Party A | Delivery 1, on schedule | S-03, S-04 | — |
| 15 | Party A | Invoice 101: $15,000, due Day 30 | S-05 | I-06 |
| 21 | Party A | Delivery 2, on schedule | S-03, S-04 | — |
| 22 | Party A | Invoice 102: $18,000, due Day 37 | S-05 | I-07 |
| 29 | Party A | Delivery 3, one day after its scheduled Day 28 | S-03, S-04 | I-02 |
| 31 | Bank records | $15,000 paid, reference INV-101 | S-06 | I-06 |
| 36 | Party A | Delivery 4, one day after its scheduled Day 35; receiving log records 40 units short | S-03, S-04 | I-02, I-03 |
| 37 | Party A | Invoice 103: $24,000, due Day 51 | S-05 | I-05 |
| 38 | Bank records | $18,000 paid, reference INV-102 | S-06 | I-07 |
| 40 | Party A | Draft credit memo for $6,000, unsigned | S-09 | I-04 |
| 43 | Party A | Delivery 5, on schedule | S-03, S-04 | I-08 |
| 44 | Party A | Invoice 104: $12,000, due Day 58 | S-05 | — |
| 45 | Party B | Last purchase order | S-02 | I-09 |
| 46 | Party A | Text: holding further shipments until invoice 103 is sorted out | S-08 | I-09 |
| 51 | Bank records | Invoice 103 due; no payment line | S-06 | I-05 |
| 58 | Bank records | Invoice 104 due; no payment line | S-06 | — |
Days are counted from the supply agreement. Each event is placed from its source record; the logs of both parties were compared.
The records support $33,000–$36,000 of the $57,000 Party A claims.
Sample data · not a real case| Item | Claimed by | Claimed | Documented | Label | Note |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Invoice 102 | Party A | $18,000 | none found | Shown in the record | Paid on Day 38 (bank statement). |
| Invoice 103 | Party A | $24,000 | $21,000–$24,000 | Contradicted | Invoice says $24,000; the revised order at the contract price gives $21,000. |
| Invoice 104 | Party A | $12,000 | $12,000 | No trace found | Invoiced and unpaid through Day 60. No written record shows whether delivery 5 was rejected. |
| Storage fees | Party A | $3,000 | none found | No trace found | No agreed rate was found. |
| Offsets Party B claims | |||||
| Late-delivery credit | Party B | $6,000 | $0–$6,000 | Single source | Supported only by an unsigned draft. |
| Delivery 4 shortfall | Party B | $6,000 | $0–$6,000 | Contradicted | The logs conflict: a full load versus 40 units short (40 × $150). |
| Totals | |||||
| Party A claimed | Party A | $57,000 | $33,000–$36,000 | Documented across the four items above. | |
| Party B claimed | Party B | $12,000 | $0–$12,000 | Documented across the two offsets above. | |
Documented = what the records provided show as owed or credited. A range means the records conflict; the reason is in the note.
How to read the labels.
| Label | Rule |
|---|---|
| No trace found | We looked in the listed records and found nothing. That is not proof it didn't happen. |
| Contradicted | The records conflict: the named sources say different things. Both are shown. |
| Shown in the record | Read directly from the named source. Nothing in the records reviewed conflicts with it. |
| Corroborated | Two or more independent record families agree. |
| Single source | Supported by one record family. Nothing found conflicts with it, but no second, independent record confirms it. |
| Inference | The step relies on a heuristic such as address labeling, metadata authorship or handle reuse. Inference: the named method. It can be wrong. |
Labels describe how well the records support each point. They are not the odds of any outcome.
Sources.
| Id | Description | Family |
|---|---|---|
| S-01 | Signed supply agreement | contract |
| S-02 | Party B purchase orders, including PO-3 and its revision | orders |
| S-03 | Party A warehouse delivery log | delivery-log |
| S-04 | Party B dock receiving log | receiving-log |
| S-05 | Party A invoices 101 to 104 | invoices |
| S-06 | Party B bank statement lines, Days 1 to 60 | bank |
| S-07 | Email between the parties, Days 1 to 60 | |
| S-08 | Text messages between account managers, Days 1 to 60 | messages |
| S-09 | Unsigned credit memo draft, file dated Day 40 | documents |
| S-10 | Party B bank statement lines, Days 90 to 120 | bank |
| S-11 | Party A returns log, Days 95 to 110 | returns-log |
All sources illustrative.
Limits of this brief.
- Only the records listed above were reviewed.
- "No trace found" means we looked in these records and found nothing; it is not proof something didn't happen.
- Labels describe support in the records, not who should win.
- Days are counted from the supply agreement (Day 1); calendar dates are withheld in this sample.
Weak points for each side.
Party A
- Invoice 102 was paid on Day 38, so the $18,000 claim for it is not supported.
- No storage-fee rate schedule was found.
Party B
- The late-delivery credit rests on one unsigned draft.
- No written rejection of delivery 5 was found.
Fictional exemplar. This brief was built to show the format. Every party, amount, day and finding is invented. It is not a real matter, client or result.