Odesa local civil court denies UAH 1,200 refund claim over unfinished cabinet handles

The local civil court in Odesa denied Iryna Levchenko’s claim for a UAH 1,200 refund from Taras Kovalchuk over unfinished cabinet handles. Although the court found that the handles remained to be fitted when the cabinet was delivered, it held that she had not proved the requested refund or any alternative monetary amount.

Judgment was entered for Kovalchuk on the payment claim, with no payment ordered from either party and no other relief granted. The court made no finding that he completed the handles, that Levchenko refused a later visit, or that he abandoned the work.

The court relied on a delivery-day Viber exchange retained by both parties, together with Kovalchuk’s admissions. It treated the repeated copies of that exchange as one conversation, not independent evidence of several exchanges. The messages reliably established delivery, unfinished handles, an offer to return and Levchenko’s request for advance contact.

Their evidentiary reach was limited. They did not establish the full contract, a deadline for fitting the handles, a later appointment or a subsequent refusal. Kovalchuk admitted that he had not arranged another visit, but the court held that this did not itself prove that either party prevented completion.

Applying the recorded rules on contractual obligations and incomplete work, the court found a shortfall at delivery without finding a more extensive breach. It also considered the rules concerning a fair opportunity to correct a problem and fair warning, but found neither a completed opportunity to finish nor a refusal of that opportunity proved.

The decisive gap concerned the remedy. No receipt, estimate, price breakdown or other record established the value of the unfinished handles, their fitting cost or another loss supporting UAH 1,200. Under the recorded rule requiring relief to match proven harm, the court could not accept the claimed figure simply because it had been requested.

Kovalchuk’s lack of a competing calculation did not cure that gap, and his offer to return did not establish that no refund could be due. The court also declined to choose another amount without a factual basis. It found no basis for an adjournment because the hearing had reached closing and no specific obtainable proof had been identified.

Levchenko’s stated claim was that the agreed price included fitting six handles and that Kovalchuk sought an additional UAH 400 to return. She sought UAH 1,200 to arrange completion. The judgment, however, recorded that her hearing submissions supplied no usable explanation of the agreement, subsequent events or refund calculation despite invitations to address those matters.

Kovalchuk denied abandoning the job and relied on his written offer to return. He said Levchenko later told him not to come, while accepting that the exchange did not prove that refusal. He acknowledged that the handles were unfinished and that he had no later appointment record or calculation challenging the refund amount.

He asked the court to deny or reduce the claim and to consider his offer to finish rather than infer abandonment. The court treated his account of a later refusal as a submission, not an established fact.

The supplied case background described a UAH 8,000 order covering a wardrobe, six handles, delivery and installation. It also identified a signed order listing the handles and their installation. The judgment nevertheless found that the hearing record did not establish the full agreement.

The outcome resolves the monetary claim on the evidence presented. It does not equate delivery with full performance or settle responsibility for the unfinished work after the return offer: the proven shortfall remained, but its monetary value was not established.