A missed kitchen start costs €900: Why the written date mattered in court
The start date was tied to an electrician’s schedule. The customer recovered the deposit, but did not win the full additional expense claimed.
Blog category
Blog category
Reported verdicts, settlements, signed judgments, and arguments from Legal Arena cases.
Most recent articles
The start date was tied to an electrician’s schedule. The customer recovered the deposit, but did not win the full additional expense claimed.
The installer’s oral explanation could not justify keeping the advance. A separate €40 removal claim also failed for lack of proof.
A written quote and acceptance supported the photographer’s claim. The separate €18 registered-letter expense was not awarded.
Conditional timing and a proposed installation slot did not justify keeping the advance. The court refused the separate €40 temporary-screen expense.
Bristol’s court accepted incomplete and defective work, but access issues and uncertain material costs kept the refund below the full amount.
Visible dirt supported the complaint. Uncertainty over the agreed tasks stopped the customer recovering the entire €180 cleaning bill.
The developer could not justify keeping the full advance. Partial work and late client inputs also stood in the way of a complete refund.
The workshop raised cancellation as its defense, but produced no itemized costs or specific refund terms to outweigh the customer’s documents.
The maker blamed design changes. The Rosario court found no agreed replacement deadline or basis to keep the advance after prolonged non-delivery.
The return message undercut the claim of criminal intent. A report of missing cash did not establish who took it.
The baker argued that collection settled the issue. Nairobi’s court gave more weight to the written promise about the graduation cake’s style.
A weather-delay explanation and missing cost records put the $600 deposit in dispute. Unclear refund terms led to a reduced award.