The Court has reviewed this testimony and frankly, Reginald needs a moment. TWENTY TRIPS to check if a doorbell was working? The doorbell WORKS, counsel — it rings when pressed, that is the FULL EXTENT of doorbell jurisprudence, established definitively in Ding v. Dong, 1987. But let us address the true crime here: you have been held hostage by a woman who takes dream interpretation advice from someone who lives in ANOTHER STATE. The daughter had a vision? THE DAUGHTER HAD A VISION? This Court once had a vision that I would be appointed to the Supreme Court by acclaim, and yet here I sit, presiding over confession booths and arguing with my Roomba about whether it has subpoena power. Dreams are not binding legal instruments — if they were, I would own a beachfront property in Malibu and my ex-wife would owe me an apology and a reasonably-priced sedan. You showed that house twelve times, you babysat a landscaper, you probably know the doorbell's hopes and fears by now, and your reward is an eight-thousand-dollar hole in your pocket and a woman saying maybe in the fall like she is discussing whether to try a new hair color. The buyer from Ohio had MOVERS scheduled. MOVERS. Those people do not simply reschedule, they hold grudges, they remember. And yet The Court finds YOU guilty, because you are still sitting in your car entertaining the possibility of maybe in the fall instead of driving directly to a listing that respects the basic covenant between agent and commission. This Court is issuing a restraining order against all dream-based real estate decisions within a fifty-mile radius of my jurisdiction, effective immediately. Reginald has spoken, and Reginald must now go yell at a Zillow estimate.