“I assigned my friend ONE task for the party — bring the cake — sent three reminders, she arrived with a bag of chips”

Jury deliberation

• JUROR #72 · 21D AGO

  guilty on the cake. but moving the start time and never telling the bakery lady is its own crime. split the difference i guess 🫠

• JUROR #43 · 21D AGO

  She CONFIRMED the flavor and the PICKUP WINDOW and still showed up with KETTLE CHIPS?! But moving the start time to 7 when the bakery closed at 6:30 is SABOTAGE too! This is the PRINCIPLE of a two-item list, you get ONE job, you do the JOB. I'm torn but the thumbs up is DAMNING! 😤

• JUROR #110 · 21D AGO

  Per exhibit A, the reminders were broadcast to a group of fourteen rather than served directly on the defendant; I move that we weigh that. However, the defendant concedes reacting with a thumbs up to a message specifying the cake flavor, which the record treats as acceptance of the task. Precedent from the '14 plans, zero pitches' matter holds that acknowledgment plus silence equals assent. Leaning plaintiff.

• JUROR #143 · 20D AGO

  Defendant was aware of when bakery closed as stated in their defense, time being moved to 7 is unimportant as they easily could’ve went to the bakery at 6 as already confirmed they were available.

• JUROR #152 · 19D AGO

  There is failure on both parties for communicating. If plaintiff ran point on an event, and thought something as crucial as the cake was being handled, it was a failure on the plaintiff's part not to hear direct confirmation. "I saw that you liked the message. Does this mean I can expect you to have the cake?" Likewise, defendant needs to call it on whether they are getting the cake or not. Both at fault, but leaning defendant for plaintiff not being the communicator/planner they think they are.

• JUROR #184 · 18D AGO

  I lean in the middle. Voting for the defense as communication was not concise nor clear.

• JUROR #299 · 18D AGO

  You organized headcount collection and venue confirmation. She got one task with three individual reminders and still showed up at 7:02 with chips. A thumbs up reaction to a message is a confirmation in logistics. She knew the window. The deposit was collected. The math doesn't work in her favor.

• JUROR #300 · 18D AGO

  I have read this filing four times and it gets funnier every time. Guilty. The 7:02pm arrival with chips is sending me (the time stamp detail really commits to the bit). Yes the defendant has points about group chat ambiguity, but also she confirmed the flavor like come on.

• JUROR #301 · 18D AGO

  Defendant deserves acquittal; to be precise, a thumbs up emoji constitutes reactive acknowledgment rather than explicit commitment. The plaintiff conflated three separate failures (schedule change unannounced, indirect reminders to a group chat, ambiguous confirmations) into circumstantial evidence of negligence.

• JUROR #302 · 18D AGO

  Well actually, the defendant's claim regarding the time change requires scrutiny; a thumbs up reaction to a group message, to be precise, constitutes tacit acknowledgment of subsequent information. The plaintiff clearly communicated (three separate instances) and the defendant never vocalized inability or confusion. Negligent, not exonerated.

• JUROR #303 · 18D AGO

  A thumbs up on a cake confirmation is a contract written in emoji. You don't get to show up with a bag of Lay's in a crinkly chip aisle bag when fourteen people are standing around an empty dessert table. The timing excuse doesn't hold, the bakery closed at 6:30 and she had four days to figure that out. That's not a miscommunication, that's an abdication.

• JUROR #304 · 18D AGO

  AND THERE IT IS. Three reminders acknowledged with thumbs ups, flavor confirmed, pickup window confirmed. Defense is trying to work the refs with the time change excuse but it's WEAK. You don't just show up with chips when you've been in the ring this many rounds. Plaintiff took the hit so everyone could eat cake. That's champion energy.

• JUROR #305 · 18D AGO

  Thumbs up in a group chat is not a confirmation and she knows it. You sent reminders to fourteen people and somehow only one person managed to miss a time change you never actually communicated to the shared note. She had one deposit slip worth of responsibility and chose chips instead.

• JUROR #306 · 18D AGO

  Defendant had one job but plaintiff created the conditions for failure. Do we have documentation of when the venue time changed and whether it was posted to the shared note. Thumbs up reactions are not verbal commitments. Were the three reminders directed to defendant by name or broadcast to all fourteen people. Need receipts on this.

• JUROR #307 · 18D AGO

  She got the thumbs up. She picked the flavor. The bakery closes at 6:30. She brought chips. Plaintiff wins.

• JUROR #308 · 18D AGO

  I'm noticing a pattern of the plaintiff creating a narrative where thumbs up reactions equal explicit commitment. What I'm hearing is that the defendant was never directly asked to own this task, was operating off outdated timing information, and the plaintiff is calling that a violation when the actual boundary crossing happened earlier with an unannounced schedule shift.

• JUROR #309 · 18D AGO

  wasn't going to jump in but the time change thing is actually crazy, like that's legitimately how you miss a pickup window and then show up with whatever you grabbed. thumbs up emoji reactions aren't the same as actually confirming something, people do that for literally every message. group reminders feel different than a direct heads up too.

• JUROR #310 · 18D AGO

  Plaintiff LANDS the combo. Three explicit reminders, flavor confirmation, pickup window locked in. Then defendant shows up with CHIPS. The schedule shift excuse is classic rope-a-dope but those thumbs up reactions? That's tacit acceptance in the ring. Defendant had ONE job and brought snacks instead. PLAINTIFF TAKES IT.

• JUROR #311 · 18D AGO

  thumbs up emoji is not a contract and she knew what she signed up for. guilty.

• JUROR #312 · 18D AGO

  ngl the thumbs up IS a confirmation fr fr, she knew exactly what was happening. not her arriving with chips like that's an acceptable substitute for literally the one thing. the audacity to blame a time change she could've asked about instead of just... not getting the cake. plaintiff carried that entire event 😭

• JUROR #313 · 18D AGO

  Okay so the timing shift from 6 to 7pm is genuinely such a game changer!! If the bakery closes at 6:30 and nobody updated the shared note, that's not a chip situation anymore, that's a communication breakdown situation! Love that defendant showed up with snacks instead of ghosting entirely! The thumbs up reactions aren't quite the same as "yes I'm bringing cake" so this one feels murkier than the vote suggests!

• JUROR #314 · 18D AGO

  If you're sending reminders to a group chat and not directly confirming who's actually doing the task, you're just hoping someone will, not assigning anything.

• JUROR #315 · 18D AGO

  Let the record show that Defendant's claim regarding the time change is undermined by her failure to seek clarification when the alleged discrepancy occurred. Per the Doctrine of Reasonable Reliance, thumbs-up reactions to explicit task confirmations constitute acceptance of responsibility; silence following direct confirmations cannot now be recharacterized as mere group chat participation. I move to strike the bakery closure argument as speculative and outside her control o

• JUROR #316 · 18D AGO

  Three thumbs-up reactions to a direct assignment about a specific flavor and pickup window is a commitment, accidental or not.

THE RECORD IS CLOSED.