Turku district court orders €400 furniture payment as conditional reduction remains unproven

The District court in Turku ordered Oskari Salonen to pay Elina Salonen €400 outstanding under their household-furniture agreement, rejecting his position that an earlier €200 payment had settled the debt. Elina received the full amount sought, with no additional compensation awarded.

The dispute turned on a proposed price reduction tied to a practical task: bringing all of Elina’s boxes over that weekend. Oskari maintained that the boxes had been delivered and that he understood his payment to be final. The court found that the evidence did not establish fulfilment of the delivery condition.

The signed agreement required Oskari to keep the sofa and dining furniture and pay Elina €600 by 15 April. A bank confirmation proved that he transferred €200 on 12 April. Together, those documents established a €400 balance unless Oskari could show that the later reduction had taken effect.

The complete message exchange showed that Elina’s offer was conditional, not an unconditional agreement to accept less. Her acceptance of €200 depended on all her boxes being brought over that weekend. Oskari replied that he could send the money the next day and would sort the boxes, but the exchange contained no confirmation of completed delivery.

The payment reference describing the transfer as final supported Oskari’s account of his belief or intention. Because he entered that wording himself, however, it did not prove Elina’s unconditional acceptance or fulfilment of the condition.

The decisive distinction concerned who had to prove what. Elina established the original debt and unpaid balance; Oskari had to establish the reduction on which he relied. Her inability to prove non-delivery did not fill that evidential gap.

Oskari argued that the messages amended the original price to €200 and that he paid in good faith believing the furniture dispute was resolved. His side initially asserted that all the boxes had been delivered, but offered no further evidence confirming delivery.

He also argued that Elina could not prove the boxes had arrived late or remained undelivered, and that payment supported an inference that he had completed the task.

Elina relied on the signed €600 agreement and the conditional wording of her later offer. She acknowledged that she had no further evidence about delivery, but argued that neither the transfer nor Oskari’s own payment reference established that the condition had been met.

The spouses’ household-property agreement contained no reduced-payment provision. The later offer appeared in messages dated 11 April, shortly before the original payment deadline.

The judgment leaves the actual fate and timing of the boxes unresolved. It does not find that Oskari failed to deliver them; it finds only that delivery was not established sufficiently to support the claimed reduction. The resulting order therefore credits the €200 paid against the original €600 obligation.