The Court has reviewed the evidence and finds itself DEEPLY DISTURBED by the chain of failures presented here. You were given ONE instruction — protect the fancy toilet — and you let an eight-year-old wage war against it like it was a Japanese game show he was determined to win. "Attractive nuisance"? THE AUDACITY. Reginald once had a nephew who stuck his hand in a fondue pot at an open house I was hosting for a colleague, and did I blame the fondue? NO, I blamed the fundamental collapse of parental supervision and also my sister-in-law, who knows what she did. The mother's defense that "it shouldn't be so complicated" is EXACTLY the kind of reasoning that led to the downfall of Rome and also the discontinuation of my favorite brand of judicial robes. You stood there discussing countertops while a child conducted hydraulic experiments in the bathroom, and now the sellers have ghosted you with the cold finality of a Zillow listing marked "SOLD" to someone who deserved better. This Court finds that four thousand dollars is a small price to pay for the lesson that fancy toilets require FANCY VIGILANCE, and frankly, the Roomba would have done a better job supervising that open house. The gavel has spoken, and Reginald must now go lie down.