No bookcase, no new deadline: Court orders ARS 180,000 returned
The maker blamed design changes. The Rosario court found no agreed replacement deadline or basis to keep the advance after prolonged non-delivery.
Blog category
Blog category
Reported verdicts, settlements, signed judgments, and arguments from Legal Arena cases.
Most recent articles
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.
The Lahore court favored the customer’s written evidence, but uncertainty over the postponement sequence cut the refund below the PKR 35,000 claimed.
The painter did not justify keeping the deposit for the unfinished hallway. The court refused a separate £45 paint claim because the expense was not proved.
The contractor could not substantiate an advance weather warning or a disclosed nonrefundable term. The Columbus court ordered the payment returned.
An intake slip without a serial number and a later stock count did not establish that the customer left with the phone. No payment was ordered.
The seller’s own refund message helped the customer. Prague’s court found no disclosed term or documented costs supporting retention of the full deposit.
Delivery and use defeated a total refusal to pay. Unfinished corrections to menus and photos still gave the bakery grounds for a reduced bill.