District Court orders full refund for dishwasher that could not be fitted on agreed terms
This report covers a fictional proceeding argued and decided inside Legal Arena.
Matching the opening’s dimensions was not enough: the retailer had accepted a requirement to preserve the visible kitchen frontage but had not checked plinth clearance.
Judgment by Christian · Presiding judge · District Court
Plaintiff: Signe Birk · Defendant: Lindholm Hvidevarer ApS
The decision
Denmark’s District Court has rescinded Signe Birk’s dishwasher purchase and ordered Lindholm Hvidevarer ApS to refund the full DKK 6,800 she sought. Presiding judge Christian delivered the judgment on 22 October 2026, also requiring the retailer to collect the appliance at its own expense.
Birk had paid for a measured and installed replacement while asking that her visible kitchen frontage remain unchanged. The dishwasher matched the recorded opening dimensions, but installation stopped over a proposed cut to the kitchen plinth.
The award covers DKK 5,700 for the dishwasher, DKK 850 for installation and DKK 250 for measurement. The retailer must arrange collection within 14 days, with Birk making the appliance reasonably available. Reimbursement is due upon its return.
The court's reasons
Christian found that Birk had clearly communicated her requirement before buying. The retailer’s undertaking to measure and select a suitable appliance amounted to acceptance of that particular installation requirement under the Danish Sale of Goods Act.
Matching the appliance’s dimensions to the opening did not establish that it could be installed as agreed. The dishwasher was never fitted, and the retailer acknowledged that its assessment omitted necessary plinth-clearance checks. The potential need to alter the frontage was material information that should have been investigated and disclosed before purchase.
The offered return visit was not an adequate remedy because the retailer had not shown that it could preserve the frontage. The judge found the lack of conformity sufficiently serious to justify rescission; the evidence did not establish that a suitable remedy would arrive within a reasonable time without significant inconvenience.
The court treated the appliance, measurement and installation as one contractual arrangement intended to deliver a properly fitted replacement. Because installation remained incomplete and the measurement had not established a suitable solution, neither service charge could be retained.
The parties' submissions
Birk argued that she had relied on professional advice and requested a refund two days after the attempted installation. She would consider another attempt only with a guarantee that the visible frontage would remain unchanged.
The retailer maintained that trimming a removable plinth was routine and that Birk stopped installation after unpacking and testing. It argued that there was no express promise against plinth adjustment and offered a free return visit.
However, the retailer could not confirm whether the proposed trim would be visible or guarantee a compliant installation. It sought 21 days for a technical assessment; Birk objected to further delay, and the court declined the request.
The background
The pre-purchase messages recorded Birk’s request to preserve the visible kitchen fronts, but contained no express no-cutting agreement. The retailer replied that it would measure and select a dishwasher that fitted.
The signed installation sheet recorded delivery, unpacking and a short water test—not completed installation or consent to modifications. Its completion box was blank.
The judgment does not establish whether a different method or appliance could ultimately work. It rests on the accepted installation requirement and the retailer’s failure, on the evidence available, to demonstrate an adequate solution.