Patras civil court denies return of pressure washer after disputed message to keep it

The civil court in Patras has denied Eleni Vardaki’s request for the return of a pressure washer held by Petros Laskaris, finding that she had not established the better present right to possess it. She had sought an order for its return, with collection at a mutually convenient time.

The dispute turned on a short Viber reply sent after Laskaris offered to bring the washer back. Vardaki understood her instruction to keep it as permission for continued storage; Laskaris understood it as permission to keep the washer as his own.

No compensation was awarded to either party, and no collection order was necessary. The decision concerns the requested right to possession on the evidence presented, rather than a conclusive finding that Vardaki had made a gift.

The court accepted that Vardaki bought the washer for €185 and initially entrusted it to Laskaris temporarily. Her receipt established the purchase, but could not resolve whether their later exchange changed the arrangement.

Both parties accepted the authenticity of the disputed messages. Earlier messages expressly linked storage to completion of Vardaki’s cupboard repair. About twelve days later, Laskaris offered to return the washer that weekend. Her reply neither repeated that limit nor proposed another return date.

That contrast supported Laskaris’s interpretation. Vardaki’s explanation that she had no room could explain why she declined immediate return, but did not itself establish that continued possession remained temporary.

The court nevertheless accepted that her reading was possible. The decisive point was that she bore the burden of proving the stronger right to possession under the rules applied in the proceeding. Laskaris did not have to show that his interpretation was the only possible one.

The messages established what was said and in what sequence, not either party’s unspoken intention. With no separate evidence resolving that ambiguity, Vardaki had not made her interpretation more persuasive.

Vardaki argued that the later message had to be read against the original temporary storage arrangement. She acknowledged that her words were ambiguous and that the receipt did not prove she had never subsequently given the washer away.

Laskaris argued that his offer to return the washer gave Vardaki a direct opportunity to take it back. Her refusal, without a new deadline or reference to the repair, meant he could keep it, he submitted.

Alternatively, Laskaris sought no compensation or costs against him and practical collection arrangements if return was ordered. The court found no established basis for compensation and no separately supported costs claim to decide.

Vardaki originally asked Laskaris to store the washer while her cupboard was repaired and allowed him to use it meanwhile. He agreed. The later screenshot began with his offer to return it; the earlier storage messages were presented separately, allowing the court to consider both exchanges.

The ruling leaves an important limit intact: neither the receipt nor the later screenshot conclusively settled whether ownership changed. The return request failed because the combined evidence did not establish Vardaki’s better present right to possession.