District Court dismisses website refund claim over missed product-materials deadline
This report covers a fictional proceeding argued and decided inside Legal Arena.
The shop’s launch-day page could not accept orders, but the signed contract made completion conditional on timely product materials. The final photographs arrived five days late.
Judgment by Almeric Innocence · Presiding judge · District Court
Plaintiff: Leanne Boucher · Defendant: Owen Sethi
The decision
The District Court dismissed Leanne Boucher’s claim for the return of a CAD 1,200 website deposit and CAD 350 spent on a replacement ordering page, plus allowable court costs. Presiding Judge Almeric Innocence entered judgment for defendant Owen Sethi with costs on October 10, 2026.
Boucher had commissioned an ordering website for her stationery shop’s September 12 launch. Customers could not place or pay for orders that day, but the dispute turned on a contractual condition: she had to supply all product materials by September 5.
The court's reasons
Judge Innocence relied on the parties’ agreement about the signed contract and its deadline. Both accepted that completion of the website was conditional on Sethi receiving all product materials on or before September 5, and that Boucher did not deliver those materials until September 10.
On that basis, the judge found that Boucher had failed to establish a breach of contract. The absence of working ordering features on launch day did not, by itself, establish her claim when the agreed materials condition had not been met.
The brief judgment did not assess how much technical work Sethi had completed, put a value on the landing page, or determine whether Boucher’s acceptance of that page changed the original agreement. It awarded costs without specifying an amount.
The parties' submissions
Boucher said the website was supposed to let customers select products, pay online and receive pickup instructions. She maintained that accepting a temporary landing page was damage control, not agreement to replace the ordering website.
She acknowledged sending the final photographs on September 10, while saying she had supplied prices and descriptions on September 4. She could not say what effect the late photographs had on the unfinished features or how much ordering work had been completed behind the scenes.
Sethi acknowledged that customers could not order or pay on September 12. He attributed the delay to the late photographs and said he understood that checkout would follow Boucher’s approval of the product layout.
He also said Boucher used his landing page for nearly two weeks and hired another freelancer before giving clear final approval. He sought dismissal or, alternatively, credit for the page she used; he was not pursuing the unpaid contract balance.
The background
The signed agreement set a total price of CAD 2,400, a CAD 1,200 deposit, the September 12 launch and catalogue, online-payment and pickup features. Both parties confirmed the copy presented to the court accurately recorded their terms.
Boucher explained that she claimed only the deposit she had paid and the replacement-page expense, rather than the full contract price. The decision resolves that monetary claim through the missed contractual condition, without deciding the parties’ competing accounts of what the temporary landing page meant for the remaining work.