Gothenburg District Court denies return of cargo bike disputed as loan or gift

Gothenburg District Court denied Elin Berg’s request for Johan Lind to return a cargo bike or pay her 6,000 SEK. It ordered no payment.

Berg said she had lent Lind the bike while she was away. Lind said he understood that she later gave it to him. The court concluded that neither the alleged gift nor Berg’s stronger right to possession had been established on the evidence presented.

The court gave some weight to Berg’s account of an earlier loan, particularly because Lind accepted that the earlier loan evidence supported the original arrangement. But the earlier chat itself was not produced, and the submissions did not establish the full terms or rule out a later change.

A later message from Berg told Lind to keep the bike “for now” because her return was delayed. The court said it showed permission to keep the bike, but was ambiguous on whether ownership had transferred. Repeated presentations of the same message did not independently confirm its meaning.

Lind’s account of a later gift was also unproved: he could not identify when the conversation occurred or its exact words, and had no independent record of it. His purchase of a lock showed his understanding, not Berg’s agreement to transfer the bike.

That gap in Lind’s account did not remove Berg’s burden to prove her claim. The court also had no purchase record or valuation evidence; their absence did not prove she had not owned the bike, but left her claim without that support. With no evidence establishing the bike’s value or a monetary loss, the court denied the 6,000 SEK request and had no basis to calculate a lesser amount.

Berg said she told Lind he could borrow the bike for a while and later extended the arrangement because her return was delayed. She pointed to chat proof of the earlier loan and said Lind had acknowledged borrowing it.

Lind argued that the earlier arrangement did not settle whether the parties later changed it. He said the later message was consistent with his understanding that the bike had been given to him, while accepting that “for now” could also mean temporary permission and that the message did not prove a gift.

The dispute arose after Berg left Gothenburg for several months and Lind took possession of the cargo bike. Berg expected it back when she returned; Lind did not dispute that he had the bike.

The judgment resolves Berg’s requests on the evidence presented. It does not find that a gift occurred, that Berg never owned the bike or that the bike had no value, and it does not determine what additional evidence might have shown.