Kitchen shelves never arrived: Kraków court orders 1,200 PLN deposit returned

Anna Krawczyk paid Marek Nowak 1,200 PLN in advance for custom kitchen shelves. When the shelves were not delivered and no refund followed, she sought return of the full deposit plus basic costs in the District Court in Kraków.

Nowak said he had not taken the money and disappeared. His case was that Krawczyk changed the layout after seeing a sketch, then did not provide final dimensions for several days. He said the advance reserved materials and design time.

• Amount claimed: 1,200 PLN.
• Claimant: Anna Krawczyk.
• Defendant: Marek Nowak.
• Outcome: full return of the 1,200 PLN deposit, plus basic costs to the extent supported by the record.

The court accepted that Krawczyk made the 1,200 PLN advance payment, relying on the payment record described in her file. It also accepted a text-message screenshot in which she asked about the shelves and received a reply that final dimensions were still awaited.

That message helped Nowak on one important point: it supported the account that the project had paused during a confirmation process. But it did not show how much work had been done or what portion of the deposit had actually been spent.

The Court cannot convert a communication about waiting for dimensions into a complete accounting for the retained money.

• Payment record: supported the 1,200 PLN advance.
• Text screenshot: supported a dispute over final dimensions.
• Missing from Nowak’s case: receipts, invoices, an itemized cost statement and photos of completed or partial work.
• Missing detail: the exact change requests and the length of Krawczyk’s alleged delay.

Krawczyk argued that she paid for shelves that were never delivered and that Nowak had not produced a clear accounting for retaining the entire advance. Her side stressed that a general claim of design work or delay could not replace proof of actual costs.

Nowak’s defence focused on the changing measurements, the sketch, and the need for final confirmation before cutting materials. He maintained that work had begun and that the pause was caused by Krawczyk’s changes rather than a refusal to perform.

• Krawczyk’s position: payment was proved; full retention was not.
• Nowak’s position: the project was delayed by unresolved dimensions and partial work had begun.
• Central question: whether the defendant could justify keeping all 1,200 PLN.

The decisive issue was not whether there had been a genuine disagreement over measurements. The court accepted that there was one. The problem for Nowak was the missing financial trail: no itemization, no receipts, no documented cost breakdown and no evidence tying the full 1,200 PLN to work performed or materials bought.

The message about final dimensions made the defence plausible, but plausibility did not establish a right to retain the full deposit.

Plausibility is not the same as proof of a right to keep the full sum.

• The written message supported delay, not the amount retained.
• The payment record established the advance.
• No document showed that the full deposit had been earned or spent.

The District Court in Kraków found for Krawczyk. It ordered Nowak to pay back 1,200 PLN and awarded basic costs to the extent supported by the record. No additional damages were awarded.

The court held that Krawczyk had proved payment and properly challenged the withholding. Nowak, in turn, did not prove a documented entitlement to retain the entire amount.

Any request by Marek Nowak to retain the full deposit is denied.

• Winner: Anna Krawczyk.
• Award: 1,200 PLN.
• Costs: basic costs, to the extent supported by the record.
• No broader damages award.

The player, poloo, identified the strongest available defence fact: the text screenshot showing that final dimensions were still awaited. That helped prevent the case from being treated as a simple disappearance or total refusal to perform.

But the defence submissions repeatedly framed the requested relief incorrectly, at points asking for return of the withheld deposit despite representing Nowak. More importantly, the advocacy did not supply the documents needed to turn the delay narrative into a quantified retention claim.

• Strength: kept the final-dimensions message at the centre of the defence.
• Strength: advanced a partial-performance and client-delay narrative.
• Weakness: no itemized accounting or actual-cost proof was presented.
• Weakness: the defence relief was stated inconsistently in parts of the argument.

Nowak’s witness, Piotr Zieliński, could only say that he saw work pause while final dimensions were being confirmed. He did not hear the full agreement and did not handle the money. His evidence therefore supported only the existence of a pause, not the value of work or materials.

The direct examination also faltered. Three defence questions drew sustained leading objections, and no useful testimony was obtained from the witness before opposing counsel narrowed his knowledge.

I did not hear the full agreement, and I did not handle any money.

• Piotr Zieliński did not know the full agreement.
• He did not handle the payment or costs.
• He could not establish the value of any work performed.
• Three leading objections against the defence were sustained.

The decision shows the difference between proving that a project became complicated and proving that a contractor may keep a customer’s money. A message about pending dimensions can explain a delay, but it does not by itself establish the amount of a valid deduction.

For a party seeking to retain an advance payment, records matter: receipts, invoices, a breakdown of labour and materials, and evidence of the work completed. Without them, a court may order repayment even where some part of the contractor’s account is believable.

• A payment record can establish the customer’s starting case.
• A delay explanation does not replace an accounting.
• A claimed deduction is stronger when tied to documented actual costs.

Possibly, but only with stronger evidence rather than argument alone. An advocate for Nowak could have sought to introduce receipts for materials, a dated design invoice or work log, photographs, and a clear calculation showing what portion of the 1,200 PLN was spent before the project stopped.

A better direct examination could also have asked Piotr Zieliński open questions about what he personally observed, without suggesting the answer. Even then, his limited knowledge of the agreement and money would not have replaced documentary proof.

• Potentially useful evidence: receipts, invoices, work logs and photographs.
• Potentially useful proof: a dated itemization of design and material costs.
• Better witness approach: open-ended questions focused on firsthand observations.
• Likely limit: the record still needed proof supporting a specific retained amount.

Would you have converted the final-dimensions message into a narrower, documented claim for partial retention—or advised repayment once the receipts and work records were missing? Take on a similar contract dispute in Legal Arena.