Evidence of the amount due on account based on records of account kept in the regular course of business is competent to prove entitlement to the price. Douglas Furniture Corp. v. Ehrlich, 160 A.2d 362, 364 (R.I. 1960). Here Wai Feng Trading, through the affidavit of its president and sole owner, has presented its statement of account of moneys owed by Quick Fitting for goods sold and delivered.

The second concept refers to the "burden of going forward" with the evidence, which shifts from party to party as the case progresses. Similar sentiments were expressed in Douglas Furniture Corp. v. Ehrlich, 91 R.I. 7, 160 A.2d 362 (1960). It must be emphasized that the cases previously mentioned which allow a jury to infer undue influence in certain circumstances do not place the actual burden of persuading the factfinder as to the existence of undue influence on anyone other than the contestants of the will.

However, to qualify as a business record the writing must be kept in the ordinary course of business. See Webbier v. Thoroughbred Racing Protect. Bureau, Inc., 105 R.I. 605, 254 A.2d 285 (1969); Douglas Furniture Corp. v. Ehrlich, 91 R.I. 7, 160 A.2d 362 (1960); Ostroff v. Stephen Girard, Inc., 79 R.I. 158, 85 A.2d 174 (1951). These diaries were a part of the Chief Field Engineer's personal records; he maintained diaries on all sorts of subjects including non-work-related readings and writings, family, physical exercise, and work responsibilities.

It is well established in this jurisdiction that a motion to reopen is within the sound discretion of the trial justice and that his decision thereon will not be disturbed by this court, unless clearly an abuse of such discretion. Berkowitz v. Simone, 97 R.I. 5, 195 A.2d 59; Douglas Furniture Corp. v. Ehrlich, 91 R.I. 7, 160 A.2d 362 and Levy v. Equitable Fire Marine Ins. Co., 88 R.I. 252, 146 A.2d 231. Applying the holding of the cited cases to the circumstances of the instant case, as disclosed by the record, we cannot say that the denial of plaintiff's motion warrants remitting the case for a new trial.

Such motions are addressed to the discretion of the trial justice, and this court will not disturb his action thereon absent a showing of an abuse of that discretion. Douglas Furniture Corp. v. Ehrlich, 91 R.I. 7; Kelley v. McMinniman, R.I., 123 A. 289. The instant record does not, in our opinion, disclose an abuse of discretion.

We have frequently held that where the parties submit their case to the trial justice sitting without a jury his decision on the facts is entitled on review in this court to great weight and will not be disturbed unless it is clearly wrong. Superior Glass Co. v. East Greenwich Savings Fund and Loan Ass'n, 92 R.I. 409, 169 A.2d 380; Douglas Furniture Corp. v. Ehrlich, 91 R.I. 7; Assembly of God Church v. Vallone, 89 R.I. 1. This is especially so in any case with or without a jury where the evidence is so sharply conflicting that the principal issue resolves itself into a question of the comparative credibility of the parties. Loughran v. DelSanto, 79 R.I. 150. The problem which confronted the court in that case was very much like the one in the case at bar.

In such circumstances we are constrained to hold that the error, if any, did not prejudice Almardon. See Douglas Furniture Corp. v. Ehrlich, 91 R.I. 7. In each case brought by the plaintiff lessor all of the exceptions of the defendant lessee are overruled; in each case brought by the plaintiff lessee all of the exceptions of the plaintiff lessee briefed and argued are overruled; and all of the cases are remitted to the superior court for entry of judgment on each decision.

The defendant's exception to the denial of the latter motion forms the basis of her exception numbered 8. A motion to reopen a case after the testimony is closed and after arguments of counsel are completed is addressed to the judicial discretion of the trial justice and absent an abuse thereof his action thereon will not be disturbed by us. Douglas Furniture Corp. v. Ehrlich, 91 R.I. 7; Levy v. Equitable Fire Marine Ins. Co., 88 R.I. 252; Greene v. Rhode Island Co., 38 R.I. 17; Lake v. Weaver, 20 R.I. 46; Case v. Dodge, 18 R.I. 661. We find no clear showing of an abuse of discretion or improper exercise thereof in allowing plaintiff to reopen his case in order to remedy what was no more than a technical defect in the state of the evidence.

See Soares v. Langlois, 934 A.2d 806, 809 (R.I. 2007). At trial, the moving party has the burden of proof as to each element of the contract. Douglas Furniture Corp. v. Ehrlich, 91 R.I. 7, 160 A.2d 362 (1960). From the evidence before it, this Court finds that Pelletier has failed to prove the existence of a contract between her and Dubin for the transfer of Mr. Big's ownership from Dubin to Pelletier that can be implied from their course of dealings.