Rennes Court Orders €120 Repayment in Wardrobe Deposit Dispute, Allows €600 Preparation Retention

Élodie Caron sought €720 from Atelier Borel Menuiserie in the Judicial Court of Rennes: repayment of a €600 deposit connected to an unfinished wardrobe project and €120 attributed to temporary storage.

Atelier Borel, represented by player Maître CAZAGOU, argued that Caron changed the requested scope after the initial measurements. The revised request called for a mirror panel and softer-closing hardware, requiring new design work and a revised proposal before custom materials could be ordered.

The central question was not whether the wardrobe was completed—it was not—but whether the company had shown a sufficient basis to retain the €600 and charge the additional €120.

“The deposit was not a promise that we would build an unapproved design.”

• Claimed relief: €600 deposit repayment plus €120 storage charge.
• Defense position: retain €600 for preparatory work and reject the €120 claim.
• Court: Judicial Court of Rennes, France.

The record supported the sequence that Caron initially requested standard white sliding doors, then requested a mirror panel and softer hardware by message. Measurements were taken for the revised scope, and Atelier Borel sent a revised proposal for approval before ordering materials.

The record also identified follow-up messages seeking approval and stated that the proposal was never approved. Benoît, who handled the exchanges with Caron, was identified as a potential witness.

For the €600, the record described site attendance, measurements, design time and a reserved production slot. For the €120, however, the record established only that temporary-storage charges were asserted; it did not include itemization or proof of actual cost.

“A proposal sent for approval before material order” was among the record’s corroborated facts.

• Corroborated materials: revised proposal and follow-up messages.
• Potential witness: Benoît, who handled the communications.
• Missing support on storage: no itemized charge or actual-cost documentation identified.

Caron’s side argued that a revised proposal and follow-up messages did not establish a final order, a completed project or an accepted arrangement allowing Atelier Borel to keep the deposit. It pressed the company to justify each deduction with concrete proof.

Maître CAZAGOU responded that Caron’s requested changes caused Atelier Borel to revise the plans and undertake work before final approval. The advocate identified the claimed components of the €600 as site visits, measurements, design time and a reserved production slot, and linked the storage charge to the revised project.

The opposing advocate repeatedly separated the two amounts: preparatory work might have occurred, but the record did not show Caron approved the revised plan or that the €120 storage charge was specifically supported.

“Une proposition envoyée en attente de confirmation n’est pas une autorisation de retenir son acompte ni de lui imposer des frais comme s’ils étaient acquis.”

• Plaintiff’s focus: proof of justified deductions.
• Defense focus: changed scope and work already performed.
• Key divide: preparatory work versus unsupported storage costs.

The outcome turned on a narrower defense theory than complete rejection of Caron’s claim. Maître CAZAGOU successfully connected the €600 to identifiable preparatory steps already reflected in the record: revised measurements, design work and a reserved production slot following Caron’s requested changes.

That framing gave the court a basis to distinguish the deposit from the unapproved final build. The court accepted that some retention for preparation was justified even though the revised design was never clearly approved.

The same strategy did not carry the €120 charge. The record did not provide the concrete, itemized support the bench repeatedly signaled it needed for storage.

“Some retention for preparation was justified.”

• Effective distinction: preparation costs were separate from final construction.
• Effective record link: revised scope, proposal and follow-up sequence.
• Unsuccessful point: storage was asserted but not documented in detail.

The court awarded partial relief to Caron. It allowed Atelier Borel to retain the €600 for preparatory work but ordered repayment of €120 associated with temporary storage.

The verdict found that Caron had changed the scope and that Atelier Borel performed preparatory work before final approval. At the same time, it found the record insufficient to support the storage charge because there was no itemization, actual-cost support or specific evidentiary link for that amount.

Of the €720 sought, Caron recovered €120. Atelier Borel’s actual liability was therefore €120.

“The record does not support keeping the €120 storage charge.”

• Disposition: partial relief.
• Amount claimed: €720.
• Amount awarded: €120.
• €600 retained for preparation; €120 storage charge rejected.

Maître CAZAGOU’s strongest contribution was to anchor the €600 retention in concrete categories of work: site visit, measurements, design time and a reserved production slot. The advocate also tied those steps to Caron’s requested change in the wardrobe specifications.

The court’s feedback credited the defense with showing that the revised proposal was sent before material ordering and with tying retained funds to preparatory work in the record. Those points supported the defense victory on the larger €600 component.

The advocacy was less effective on the separate storage issue. The defense repeated that materials were stored, but did not supply a detailed accounting or documentary proof of the €120 cost.

“You tied the retained funds to specific preparatory work already in the record.”

• Strength: linked the €600 to identified preparatory services.
• Strength: emphasized the revised proposal and approval sequence.
• Weakness: did not substantiate the €120 with itemized evidence.

The principal weakness was the absence of proof that Caron clearly approved the revised plan. Although that did not prevent the court from recognizing preparatory work, it limited the defense’s ability to characterize the uncompleted project as a fully authorized final order.

The storage claim was more vulnerable. The bench repeatedly indicated that the €120 remained the weakest item because the record lacked itemization and actual-cost support.

The defense also relied heavily on argument rather than developing Benoît’s potential testimony or presenting more detailed documentation of the claimed work and storage.

“The storage charge remains the weakest item on this record.”

• No clear approval of the revised plan.
• No itemized proof for the €120 storage deduction.
• Potential witness evidence was identified but not developed in the recorded advocacy.

The ruling illustrates the importance of separating a deposit dispute into its component deductions. A business may be able to show that preparatory work has value even when a custom project never reaches final approval or completion.

But the decision also shows that each retained amount requires its own evidentiary foundation. A general assertion that storage occurred did not establish that €120 could be charged to the customer.

For custom-work disputes, revised proposals, approval requests, design records and cost documentation can determine whether a court treats a retained payment as justified preparation or an unsupported charge.

“The defense still needs concrete support for each retained amount.”

• Custom-project changes can support recovery for documented preparatory work.
• An unapproved final design does not automatically erase evidence of earlier work.
• Separate charges need separate proof.

A different advocate might have improved Atelier Borel’s position on the €120 only by presenting evidence absent from this record: an itemized storage invoice, proof of actual storage expense, records tying stored materials to Caron’s project, or a clear agreed basis for the charge.

On the €600, stronger presentation of the revised proposal, follow-up messages and Benoît’s account could have made the preparation-cost theory more precise. Yet the lack of clear approval of the revised plan would still have remained a meaningful limitation.

For Caron, the opposing advocate’s insistence on proof for each deduction was decisive as to storage. That approach converted a broad €720 claim into a targeted €120 recovery while leaving the documented preparation component intact.

“Without itemization or actual-cost support,” the €120 charge could not be retained.

• Possible defense improvement: itemized storage records and proof of actual cost.
• Possible defense improvement: developed testimony from Benoît.
• Plaintiff’s successful approach: challenge each deduction separately.

Would you defend the €600 preparation retention, challenge the €120 storage charge, or build a record that supports both? Take on a similar contract dispute in Legal Arena.